Chris Warkentin

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 12th, 2010]

With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and seniors in poverty, what would it cost the government on an annual basis to increase the GIS until the combined GIS and Old Age Security payments raised the income of seniors to the level of the low-income cut-off?

[Privilege, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in my time up, I referenced two different documents, one is the reference for the transcripts of the meeting that I was discussing and the other is the transcript from The Hill Times, which I would like the opportunity to table because I think they are pertinent to the discussion that we have had this afternoon.

[Privilege, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the issue brought forward by my colleague across the way.

What we have here this afternoon is an issue of debate. It is dispute between myself and my colleague on our opinion of his actions and in what way they might be classified. I believe this is an issue of debate.

I believe very strongly, I did on Thursday and I do today, that it was inappropriate for the member for Mississauga South to have a private conversation with a commissioner of this House who is undertaking a review, an investigation. He spoke to her about the exact issue she is currently considering.

My opinion, and I will stand behind my opinion, is that it was wrong for the hon. member to call the interim information commissioner to ask her questions with regard to an investigation that she is currently undertaking.

The only issue we have here today is an issue of freedom of speech in the House. On page 26 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, it states:

One of the first and greatest of its privileges is free speech and one of the advantages of legislative bodies is the right of exposing and denouncing abuses by means of free speech.

I believe that is what I was doing. I believe I have, not only a responsibility or an option, but I have a duty to expose what I believe to be the abuse of authority of this chairman in committee.

It is ironic that we are discussing an issue today that I believe is far less offensive than the lines of questioning, the statements and the behaviours that he permits in his own committee. On Thursday, I had an opportunity to sit for a time in his committee, at which time I incurred that abuse myself.

I was shut down on a point of order and was lectured on an issue on which I felt I had a right to bring forward.

Mr. Speaker, if you refer to the transcripts of the committee, which I will be willing to table once I am finished, you will find that in fact that was the case.

I point out that the assistant information commissioner had instructed the person who was before the committee with the following words. It is Andrea Neill. She had given a confidentiality order to the witness. The dispute here essentially is that the deputy commissioner had told the witness to conduct himself in one way. Yet, we had the member opposite instructing the committee to disregard what the witness had been told by the assistant information commissioner, and to simply believe that, based on a private conversation he had with the commissioner, we should all believe that what she had stated to the witness should be disregarded.

She had told the witness that any question asked, answers given, and exhibits used during his examination under oath before counsel of the Information Commissioner on March 23, 2010 in any matter to anyone, until the Information Commissioner's investigation is complete, except to his counsel, should not be done.

Later, the member for Mississauga South stated that he had a conversation with the Information Commissioner that morning and claimed that all was well, everything was open and nothing should be restricted.

My question at committee was, and still is, were his instructions the correct instructions, or should we, as members of Parliament, be held to the requirements that were put forward by the assistant information commissioner?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you have the capacity to rule as to who we as members of Parliament should listen to.

Simply put, even this afternoon as I stand here, there seems to be a contradiction. Either he has the correct information or the Information Commissioner gave the correct information. This is probably more an issue of debate than it is a question of privilege, but these are the discussions we are having.

We talk about bullying people and witnesses, and the member went on at great length about what is appropriate to be said and if that somehow impedes the ability for other people to do their work, but in The Hill Times I read the chairman's comments, and the quotation from the chair is very clear. I believe it stands as evidence that there was this type of influence being put forward by the chair on the witness. I believe it is intimidating for the witness if the witness were to read this, and I am sure the witness has read it by now. In The Hill Times the chairman is quoted as saying, and he is referring to the witness:

If he refuses to answer [questions at Tuesday's meeting], then he is subject to possibly being in contempt of committee.

We see now in the press the member opposite giving instruction to a witness who is still before committee in a matter that I believe demonstrates all of the intimidation anybody would have to bring to this place to show that is in fact intimidation. This is the type of situation we are talking about.

Based on this information, my opinion has not changed. I still believe it was inappropriate for the member opposite to talk to the commissioner about an investigation that was ongoing. We are led to believe that he talked specifically about if or not the witness should be allowed to talk about information he had been told not to talk to members about. There is a confidentiality order.

Based on these conclusions, I felt it was my responsibility to come forward and demonstrate what I felt to be abuse in this place. That is where it is important that we have the freedom of speech.

I in no way, shape or form brought forward a personal attack. There is a clear distinction between bringing forward what we believe to be the facts and bringing forward a frivolous personal attack. I believe there is a clear distinction.

If we are not allowed to bring forward facts, if we are not allowed to bring forward debate items that may impact other members because it may offend somebody or it might hurt somebody's feelings, that limits free speech in this chamber.

I know that the hon. member opposite has a high ethical standard. I believe that he will stand in this place and apologize to members of this chamber and members of the committee which he chairs for the actions that he has undertaken both in communicating with the Information Commissioner and then in the way he conducts the committee as well.

[Heroism, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise in the House to pay tribute to a young hero from my community.

On July 12, 2007, Aaliyah Braybrook, a 12-year-old resident from the town of Clairmont, was babysitting two young neighbour boys when a fire broke out in the home. Immediately, Aaliyah did what her training at the Red Cross babysitting course had taught her to do. She evacuated the home, saving the two young residents and the family pet. She then called 911. Within minutes, the mobile home was burned to the ground.

This week, Aaliyah's heroic actions were rewarded by a lawsuit initiated by an unnamed insurance company demanding that she take financial responsibility for a portion of the $350,000 in damages. Aaliyah did her job. She saved those who were in her care and immediately warned authorities of the fire.

Aaliyah is a hero. I think so, her family thinks so and so does her community. I call on this unnamed insurance company to back off and to recognize Aaliyah for the hero that she is.

[Ethics, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Liberal chair of the ethics committee showed yet again the ethical bankruptcy of the Liberal Party, when it was revealed that he had a private conversation with the interim Information Commissioner about an ongoing investigation.

Is this how the Liberal Party respects the independent officers of Parliament? All members of the House should believe in respecting due process, all members should believe in respecting the independence of officers of Parliament.

No member of the House should be engaged in a private conversation with a legal authority about an ongoing investigation in the middle of that investigation.

Yet, the member for Mississauga South threw due process and respect for the independent authority of that officer completely out the window by attempting to influence, interfere or direct that independent officer of Parliament.

This is highly inappropriate, grossly unethical, and shows yet again why the Liberal Party cannot be trusted.

[Ethics, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, speaking about full transparency, the members on this side understand that it is not something we just simply talk about. It is something we live every day.

Yesterday, while the executive director of the Liberal Party was out soliciting secret campaign donations, the Liberals were in the House arguing that Canadians had no right to know which Liberal lobbyists they were meeting with, what they were talking about and who exactly the Liberal Party represented.

Could the President of the Treasury Board please share with the House why we believe it is so important that Canadians have full transparency?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this highlights the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party. On a day that we are talking about transparency and accountability in this House, we have a letter that is being distributed by the bagmen of the Liberal Party asking for people to hide their donations. We are getting back to a situation where the next thing they are going to be asking for is for the money to be enclosed in brown envelopes. On a day that we are talking about absolute transparency and accountability, it is time that the Liberals joined the rest of Parliament on this expedition toward full transparency.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are absolutely clear as they relate to the issue that the member presented.

The first point is that neither Mr. Jaffer nor his partners received any government money. The second point is that all the documentation that we are discussing around committee tables has been brought forward by the government in an act of full transparency and full accountability. That is the way that Canadians would expect a transparent government to conduct itself and that certainly has been the demonstration in this case as well.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolute clear at this point who is and who is not supporting a measure that would include all parliamentarians. It is this side of the House that is proposing that we move further than any other party in this House as it relates to new measures. I believe that every member of Parliament should be accountable for whom they meet with, and to disclose to Canadians and more importantly to their own constituents with whom they are meeting and by whom they are being pressured.

It is interesting to watch the doors of the opposition lobby, because we see a number of lobbyists go through those doors, former Liberal ministers. Canadians do not know what happens behind those closed doors. I think it is important and incumbent upon those members to disclose to their constituents and to all Canadians who those people are.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion. It is an opportunity for all of us to get up on an issue that is important to all of us, the issue of accountability.

Our government has certainly demonstrated over the last number of years its commitment to openness, transparency and accountability. The ethical atom bomb known as the sponsorship scandal caused many Canadians to lose their trust in elected officials.

People will recall that I was elected and the Conservative government was elected on our commitment to change the way that things are done here in Ottawa. There is no doubt that we have delivered. We put accountability and ethical behaviour squarely at the centre of our contract with Canadians and squarely at the centre of our governing agenda.

I can assure the House that our commitment to accountability has not diminished. Accountability is the only thing that will earn the public trust in government; ensuring it is a full-time job and the basis for everything that we do.

The Federal Accountability Act was the first step. This was toughest anti-corruption legislation in Canadian history. Our commitment to ensuring accountability did not stop, though, with the passage of that act in 2006. It continues to be at the forefront of our engagement with Canadians. It pervades every action of this government.

One of the first things we did was to bring forward that act to reduce the influence of big business and big labour's donations in elections. As a result, a law banning contributions to political parties by corporations, unions and organizations and lowering the limit on individuals' political contributions came into force in 2007.

We do not believe that money should drive the political system or that untraceable envelopes of cash passed between Liberal operatives have any place in any government.

When we drafted the legislation, we wanted to ensure that our public servants could report wrongdoing without worrying about reprisals. We put into place a whistleblower protection act to ensure that these brave individuals would be protected.

As a result, Canada has one of the strongest, if not the strongest, whistleblower protection regimes in the western hemisphere. Canadians have a right to expect from their public officials, elected and non-elected, that they act ethically and are accountable for their actions. In almost 100% of the cases, they are accountable and they conduct themselves in this way.

These measures have sent a loud and clear signal that the people who are entrusted with taxpayers' money have a duty and responsibility to look after taxpayers' money. Those who abuse the trust and commit fraud are subject to prosecution and tough penalties.

We have also lowered the annual limit for political contributions from $5,000 to $1,000. We cut the influence of big businesses and big labour on the political process.

Canadians wanted a more open and transparent government and the government delivered. We put into place measures to provide Canadians with broader and better access to more information from public organizations than they had ever had before. For example, we extended the Access to Information Act to over 70 crown corporations. Over 250 organizations are now subject to the Access to Information Act.

To help restore public trust in government, we introduced measures to strengthen ethical conduct among lobbyists as well. One of the key aspects of the stipulation that lobbyists now have to undertake is the requirement that they file monthly reports for lobbying activities that they initiate with ministers, their staff and senior officials. As a result, lobbying is more transparent and open than it has ever been before.

Today, anyone can find out who is lobbying ministers, who is lobbying senior government, and in what context they are lobbying. This information is available on the Internet. Information about lobbying activities such as which lobbyists are communicating with which ministers and senior officials on what topics is available to the public. The government has also drawn a line between appropriate and inappropriate lobbying.

One of the most important changes that we made was to ban people who had been in positions of power from lobbying for at least five years after they leave those positions. We specifically targeted those who would influence the government's choice of policies, programs and services for personal gain.

This act is strict. If any designated public office holder breaches the act, he or she could be subject to stiff sanctions ranging from monetary penalties to jail time. Fines can be as high as $50,000.

These measures have given Canadians one of the most robust lobbying regimes in the world. More importantly, they have given Canadians the reassurance that former senior officials, politicians and their staff cannot use their personal connections to obtain special favours from the government once they leave office.

Our reforms have created the Commissioner of Lobbying and ensured that this agent of Parliament has the power needed to be an effective independent watchdog. This is a considerable break from the Liberal system where only a toothless registrar had oversight of these matters.

These are only a few of the measures that have been taken by this government to strengthen accountability in the public service and to ensure that lobbying is conducted openly and transparently.

I am very proud of the reforms that our government has introduced since first coming to power.

I think it is a little bit rich that we hear the Liberal Party presenting this motion today. It is, after all, the same party that brought us the sponsorship scandal that forced us to take the steps that I have outlined today. It is the same party that kicked and screamed at almost every single step of the process when Parliament was considering the Federal Accountability Act.

We on this side of the House believe that Canadians have a right to know who is pressuring their representatives. We cast a wide net in the Federal Accountability Act, but no system is perfect.

Today we have heard the President of the Treasury Board and the government House leader propose that these same lobbying rules be extended to all parliamentarians, to every single member of Parliament and to every senator as well. We also believe that the staff of the opposition leaders' offices should also be subject to these requirements. This only makes sense. After all, these parliamentarians play a key role in shaping public policy and Canadians have the right to know who is meeting with those people.

If the opposition is really serious about accountability to Canadians, they should have absolutely no problem with supporting these measures that were outlined today.