Carolyn Parrish

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

I learned a long time ago in local politics that we have to develop thick skins. If the member does not want to hear our opinions, she should not have suggested this subject as a debate point for the day.

The minister responsible for the CIO recently asked the following question in the House:

How is it that, according to the Bloc, when the Government of Quebec communicates with its citizens it is called information but when the Government of Canada communicates with its citizens, especially those in Quebec, it suddenly becomes propaganda?

For the Bloc to attack the CIO because it feels its media monitoring is an irresponsible expenditure of public money is incredible, coming from an opposition party that uses federal and Commons public funding to promote the separation of Quebec from Canada.

Every department, every government, federal and provincial, and especially the head office in Quebec City, conducts media monitoring. One must be really trying to create a crisis where there is none if one would have people believe it is incredible and unacceptable for the Government of Canada to adopt and use the enhanced communication media that are a reflection and tools of our times.

The distinctive feature of this media monitoring is that it covers all subjects related to the institutional communications of the Government of Canada. Obviously all departments, whether it be justice, environment, or citizenship and immigration, have their own media monitoring unit.

The added value of the CIO's media room is that it shares with the other departments media coverage of a general nature, which allows those departments to better manage their own mandates while incorporating an overview of the issues. They are relevant to the Government of Canada. It is self-evident that horizontal communication is an asset which helps make the government's message coherent to taxpayers.

I would like to add that I came through a very long career, a very different career path. Each time I ended up in a spot in life, technology was always a half step ahead of me. I find it phenomenal in the House the excellent job done with Quorum and all the information provided by each department on what the public in Canada is thinking.

That is why I believe that the government is very responsive to the Canadian public. We use the tools available. We do not use propaganda. We share information. We correct propaganda. We make sure that every citizen in every community across the country has access to all government services, understands government services, understands their rights and are able to access them.

I am very proud of the CIO. I am very proud of the minister who is in charge of it. He is doing an extremely efficient job. I mildly resent the fact that we wasted a whole day talking about this motion.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak today to the whole concept of media monitoring which was raised by some of our speakers in the debate this morning.

Do we really need to be reminded that we are living in the information age? Every day we in the industrialized world take in a wide variety of information. Over the last 20 years we have been witness to the continuous acceleration and improvement of information technology. One need only think of the computer and the Internet which are part of the daily lives of so many Canadians and which make information increasingly and ever more quickly accessible.

In Canada alone we have four 24 hour television news channels: RDI, LCN, Newsworld and CTV News, which often provide live coverage of current events. The information age has substantially changed the relationship between citizens and the government. Elected officials are finding citizens to be increasingly well informed as most of them now have the benefit of sophisticated tools for finding out what their governments are doing.

The public is paying attention. We can never underestimate its interest in what we do here. For example, on the new immigration bill that is being debated and has now gone to committee, droves of people have come into my office in Mississauga asking when it will be implemented, when the process will start and when new people can be sponsored under the new rules. We can never underestimate citizens.

The citizens of Canada want a say in the directions adopted by the government. For this to be possible, there must be a dialogue between the government and its citizens. Let us remember the commitment of the government in this regard. The Government of Canada will demonstrate in its daily activities that it is listening to its citizens.

At the Canada Information Office, the Quebec ministerial tours are a success precisely because their purpose is to communicate with citizens. If they were out there simply to give one way information it would be a useless endeavour, but they are there to listen, and listening is equally as important as giving out information. The ministers meet with and listen to the concerns of mayors, presidents of chambers of commerce, and volunteer and community workers.

Is the Bloc living on the same planet as the rest of us? I must confess that I find it incredible that the Bloc should be surprised that the Government of Canada, like all governments serious about establishing a fruitful dialogue with their citizens, engages in media monitoring events in the news which in French is called suivi médiatique.

We are living in a world of information, and that is reality. It is a very palpable reality for governments which have to be able to keep abreast of the latest news developments so they can manage public affairs properly. When we get down to it, what is media monitoring?

I will disappoint the Bloc but I have no secrets to reveal on the subject. The CIO carries out reviews of the print and electronic media and of analyses of current events, very similar to the Quorum which we get in the lobbies every day. The Government of Canada needs these reviews to be appropriately informed to make the decisions that are necessary. Not to be thus equipped would be irresponsible.

All members of the House know that the people who come into our constituency offices, often to complain about something, are not representative samples of what the Canadian public is thinking. If we just depended on those who come into our offices and those that we choose to listen to, we would have a very slanted view of the world, indeed.

When the Bloc describes the CIO's media monitoring as secret surveillance, or says that it keeps personal information records on journalists, no one takes them very seriously, not even the journalists who are being greatly underestimated. If the journalists believed for one minute this was happening, there would be a massive hue and cry.

I should like to quote Ms. Manon Cornellier, a journalist with Le Devoir , who stated recently:

It is common practice for departments and organizations to analyze media content and particularly the trends of their editorial pages.

No one is therefore surprised to learn that the CIO has analyzed the editorial evolution of the Gazette . No one is surprised. These documents the Bloc keeps talking about are nothing more than a failed attempt to create something out of nothing.

Let me be perfectly clear. There exists no personal records at the CIO, neither on journalists nor on anyone else. The documents in question date back to more than three years ago. They are simple media analyses that contain absolutely no secret or personal information.

These analyses turned out to be of very little use and the CIO does not prepare them any more. Using loaded words to try and instil fear in the hope of winning a few political points is becoming rather more typical of the Bloc. Though it is true it does need some points at the moment, there is always the double standard: what is good for one is not good for the other; what is good for the PQ government is not good for the Government of Canada.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I never fail to be impressed with how the party opposite can suck and blow at the same time.

I can remember back to the last referendum when members of the Reform Party said that we should engage all Canadians in the issue of Canadian unity, not just politicians from Quebec. They went on to say that we should take a tough line with the separatists, refute their lies, talk directly to Canadians and give them the straight facts without the filter of provincial governments.

I suggest we have done that on a very modest scale to the tune of about 60 cents per person across the country, both to collect their opinions and to impart information. However, I warn the member opposite that she is courting the prime information dispenser of two former leaders, Mr. Mulroney, and Mr. Harris who is currently in Ontario. Mr. Long, who is fighting for the leadership of the member's party, dispensed over $100 million before the 1999 election in Ontario. That was pretty outrageous material that was not exactly not seen through a filter of political taint.

If Mr. Long democratically and fairly wins the leadership of her party, will the member put up or will she not and suggest that he cannot use $100 million of money either from that party opposite or from any party to dispense his venom to the country?

[Points Of Order, May 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is a good thing I was not going for a million dollar question today. I have to correct two errors in the record.

In my answer to the question from the member for Vancouver East I said that CMHC was insuring 650,000 units last year. It is 475,000 units.

In my answer to the question from the member from New Westminster, there is no such thing as tax free loans, but in this case I was referring to low interest loans for B.C.

[Housing, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the GST is a nationally based tax. It is collected from federal taxpayers right across the country.

The leaky condo problem is a faulty building code which is provincial and municipal. It is very difficult to take GST funds from the national taxpayer and pay it out for a mistake that is local in B.C.

As far as ponying up is concerned, we are facilitating second mortgages. We are making RRAP funds available and more flexible. We have offered $75 million in tax free loans to the Government of British Columbia but so far it has not been taken up.

[Housing, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, first, CMHC officials not only meet with people who are advocates of social housing, they also fund a portion of many of these housing conferences. I was at one two week's ago in my own riding that was funded with $50,000 of CMHC funding. I think the member opposite should look into that before she makes such accusations.

CMHC is committed to public and private partnerships. It has built 15,000 units of very unique housing over the last several years. It will continue to do this. It is currently ensuring—

[Public Works And Government Services, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Y2K issue is over and done with. We had good results from all the work and all the preparation.

The reason this country and all of its computers did not shut down was because of due diligence on the part of the minister and the government.

[Public Works And Government Services, May 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would not admit that at all.

The government contracting process provides equal access to government contracts for all companies. The procurement process is open, fair and transparent. It is audited by the auditor general every year, and we do co-operate. Sole source contracts are awarded for a very specific reason, whether there is extreme urgency, low dollar values, or only one person that can do the job. They are down 18% since 1993 and represented only 6% two years ago.

They are published on MERX and open to challenge by anyone who wants to question why they were awarded.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Committees Of The House, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 30th annual report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the main estimates, Vote 5 under “Parliament”, dated March 31, 2000.