Dan McTeague

[Financial Institutions, November 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it has been nine months since the Minister of Finance tabled his budget. In the past nine months the minister has failed to deliver on his promise to help consumer and small business struggling under the weight of outrageous credit and debit fees.

Here we are some nine months later and there is still no action by the minister, except of course a rumoured quick fix voluntary code of conduct, a move that comes nowhere near addressing the damages to the credit and debit payments market.

Where is his plan, or does he even have one?

[Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act, October 27th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear the comments of the member proposing this legislation.

I am very concerned. We all agree on the principles that are outlined with respect to this bill and we could debate the question as to why the bill was split in two.

However, considering the effort this member made back in 2002-03 when dealing with the Kids' Internet Safety Alliance and people like Detective Paul Gillespie and others when we brought to bear issues of child pornography, exploitation on the Internet and the challenges faced by Internet service providers that would often not allow these warrants and certainly not on a costly basis, why has the government taken so long? Recognizing that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine had virtually the same bill that the member is taking about here today, why did it take the Conservative government four years to propose a bill if it is that important? I want the hon. member to explain to us why it took four years of dithering before it put this legislation forward. She is asking for speedy passage. Where has the government been for the past four years?

[October 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the hon. member make comments about openness and transparency. Apparently the only people in this country who actually believe that are the hon. member and his party. It is understandable, because contradicting what they said in campaigns is part of their style.

I want to speak more directly to what the hon. member has failed to mention. Not only was the Accountability Act not properly implemented with respect to the decisions made by officers at arm's-length from this Parliament, including the Information Commissioner, but the comments that were made by the Information Commissioner are not to be fooled around with. The hon. member understands full well that although his party may want to interfere with that, the reality is those recommendations as well as the recommendations of the committees were born to ensure optimal transparency from a government and obviously a minister and perhaps even a member of Parliament who seem to be hiding behind it.

I would encourage the hon. member to look around him, to look at the facts, to walk away from his notes and to start thinking about the fact that the people affected by this are his constituents and Canadians in general. The extent to which they defend the indefensible is indefensible in itself.

[October 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last May I raised a concern that relates to the transparency and openness that Canadians should come to expect of our government and of our Parliament.

It is extremely important for us to recognize that in the last year the former Information Commissioner, Mr. Robert Marleau, a former clerk of yours, Mr. Speaker, has made a number of assertions about the state of information access in this country and found it to be frankly abysmal, and we agree on this side. While this is not an opportunity for us to go back and say one party can do better than the other, the reality is that Canadians deserve better.

I asked the President of the Treasury Board at the time what his position was with respect to the findings of the Auditor General, but between last May when I asked that question and today, as we have now learned from the justice minister , he has made the decision not to embrace or accept the importance of ensuring that there is full disclosure in this country as it relates to access to information. We now learn that the government has pretty much put the kibosh, so to speak, on the idea of openness and transparency. It has done so against a growing chorus of Canadians who believe that Canada is not only falling behind, but that the government stands very much in the way of the kind of changes necessary and the recommendations made not only by Mr. Marleau but also by the committee responsible, in this case the Standing Committee on Access to Information.

Let us not underestimate the significance of what the government is doing to stonewall and to block. Just last week we learned the $100,000 cheque presentation in the riding of Cambridge would not have come to us had it not been for a successful ATIP. We now know that consistently and for heavily redacted articles, the 30 days within which information is normally shared, as the law requires, is now turning into 120 days. In some cases we can actually say that it goes to six months, eight months, a year or a year and a half. Some of these matters are now heading to the federal court in order to get the transparency that is so important, not just to this Parliament and its ability to function, but in order for the public to have confidence in these institutions.

We may argue as to what recommendations constitute the basis on which we ensure there is transparency. One thing is very clear. In this country at this time we are seeing an accretion of opportunities and the ability of the Canadian government and the public to recognize that information that they want is not deliverable.

I take into consideration not only the concerns that were raised by the committee, but also the basis on which those committee recommendations took place, the 12 recommendation of the Information Commissioner himself. They are simple things like a parliamentary review every five years of access to information, that all persons have a right to access records and that the Access to Information Act provide the Information Commissioner with order-making power for administrative matters.

If we want to ensure that we get full disclosure on information that the public and the media are seeking about these institutions, whether they be our Parliament or our courts, it seems to me it is incumbent on this Parliament and this government to stop stonewalling, stop blocking and start dealing with what the public expects as it relates to access to information.

I see the parliamentary secretary is pretty excited over there. I look forward to his comments.

[Petitions, October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, a petition to the government from hundreds of Canadians from Brampton to New Market to Mississauga to Oshawa, Whitby, Maple, Peterborough, Port Perry and Kingston, Ontario, and even Saskatoon.

The petitioners are concerned about a serious lack of competition and transparency in the energy industry that has hampered the free market to the detriment of all Canadians. The petitioners are concerned that the price of fuel inflates the price of everything we purchase.

They, therefore, call upon the Canadian government to finally acknowledge that the price of fuel at these kinds of levels is damaging to the Canadian economy. They ask that the government move quickly and rapidly to reinstate the office of petroleum price information, which was abolished by the government in 2006, as an energy market information service, which is very much like the U.S. energy information agency. It would produce weekly reports, including all Canadian energy supply, demand, inventory and storage information.

The petitioners further call upon the government to begin hearings into the energy sector to determine how the government can foster competition and provide transparency to the market and eliminate the monopolistic efficiencies defence clause of the Competition Act.

[Petitions, September 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition that is signed by Canadians from across this country, ranging from Dawson, Yukon, all the way to British Columbia, back to Kamloops and over to Richmond Hill.

The petitioners call upon the government to acknowledge that the high price of fuel is damaging the Canadian economy, on a day when gas prices are probably going to go up 2¢ to 3¢ a litre; reinstate the office of petroleum price information, which was abolished by the government in 2006; begin hearings into the energy sector to determine how the government can foster competition and provide transparency in the energy market; and eliminate the monopolistic efficiency defence cost to the competition of Canada.

The petition has been signed by over 103 Canadians.

[Fuel Prices, September 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, something amazing is happening in the United States. Almost a decade after the Enron loophole was opened during a flawed attempt at deregulating the energy market, the Obama administration is looking to close it. However, here in Canada nothing is happening.

Two summers ago, as we all recall, gasoline prices soared to a national average of $1.45 per litre. Diesel, jet fuel and other heating distillates soon followed. High and volatile fuel prices drive up inflation and hurt Canadians, business and the energy industry itself.

Canadians deserve a government that will take these issues seriously. We now know that increased and unregulated speculation in the energy commodities market, including over the counter trades right here in Canada, and not market fundamentals, are the cause of these volatile energy prices. Governments around the world are taking this issue seriously and are looking for solutions.

To avoid a repeat of last summer, I am calling upon the Prime Minister to do more than say there is nothing that he can do. If our government is not part of the solution, then it is part of the problem. Canadians deserve a government that can indeed do better.

[Foreign Affairs, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for that critical update. It looks like several points have been addressed.

The real question that remains is one that perhaps he can choose to suggest that it may not be the place for him to respond, but certainly we can do that in a meeting or perhaps with the family. It is the of whether witnesses in Canada have in fact been contacted and what level of co-operation the Canadian government has given to Mexicans to ensure that, from our perspective, it is seen as a measure to ensure Mr. Kulisek has a speedy trial, considering the year and a half that he has been there.

I ask the parliamentary secretary then to clarify and to ensure that requests by Mexicans to obtain more information have been agreed to and confirm that Canadian witnesses have been interviewed. Ultimately, he and I would certainly like to see this case move on and have Mr. Kulisek returned. That will require a quick and speedy trial.

[Foreign Affairs, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor further to a question that was raised back in April concerning the plight and the ongoing incarceration in Mexico of Canadian Pavel Kulisek.

Members will recall that Mr. Kulisek was charged with very serious offences, but those offences were in fact allegations that were made by an individual whose own reputation was very dubious within the Mexican judicial system, a prosecutor who himself is alleged to have been involved with other issues surrounding the drug cartel within Mexico.

Mr. Kulisek has had a number of medical concerns that apparently have not been raised, particularly, his dental care. As well, I should point out he was very sick for a period of time. Mexican authorities wanted to make some form of intravenous injection to his stomach. He resisted.

The Mexican authorities have offered to provide Mr. Kulisek an answer to some of the witnesses that he has provided as character witnesses to his good nature and his good reputation. They have offered to the Canadian government to provide assistance in obtaining the responses by many of those witnesses. I wonder will it be possible? Has the government heard anything? Have any witnesses here in Canada been approached?

I do not want to go back into a situation we have seen before, a standoff between countries. However, when one is brought before a tribunal, whether that be in Mexico which honours the system of due process as we do here in this country, it seems to me that a year and a half incarceration in one of the most notorious jails arguably in the world is hardly a way of demonstrating to Canadians and others that Mr. Kulisek's case, the plight of his family, the plight for those who seek justice, that he in fact was railroaded, has an opportunity to be given a fair and appropriate day in court. That has not happened. I am very concerned about this. We, as Liberals, are concerned about this.

I certainly do not want this to be seen as another example of the government turning a blind eye on a Canadian abroad. I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary can provide some answers. I did not ask him the question originally. I asked his minister. There seems to be some confusion as to whom I should be asking these questions. If the issue happens to occur in America, it tends to be a minister of state. If it happens to be a consular case, it might be the hon. parliamentary secretary. If it is a more general case, dealing with other parts of the world, it tends to be the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

That confusion aside, I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary. It has been six months since I raised this question. Mr. Kulisek has been a year and a half in prison. I want to know whether the government has provided consular services, if it has been able to raise the question of due process and if he is receiving the treatment that he needs. Above all, I would like to ensure that Mr. Kulisek is not left in a situation where he is being treated differently simply because he is a Canadian.

I will acknowledge that the government is going to respond by saying the charges against Mr. Kulisek are serious. The parliamentary secretary knows that I did his work and he is now doing my work, and we want to work together on some of these cases. What I am asking for are very specific timelines as to when the government believes the Government of Mexico's judicial officials will proceed with this case so that we can find out one way or another determination under Mexican law whether or not Mr. Kulisek will have a fair trial, whether that trial will be timely and, more important, when he will be freed.

I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to answer a few of those questions.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, September 16th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-437, An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (labour relations).

Mr. Speaker, I assure you that my comments will be very appropriate.

It is my pleasure once again to introduce this bill, An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. I am pleased to have the support of not only my caucus colleagues in the Liberal Party but also more important, our critic in the area of public safety, the member for Ajax—Pickering.

The bill would provide the RCMP with the right to collectively bargain, a right our national police force surprisingly has never had. This bill would also provide the RCMP with a proper and appropriate grievance process, one that would replace the staff relations program, which was struck down by the courts earlier this year.

Hopefully, collective bargaining rights can help protect officers in the RCMP from situations such as the one that occurred earlier this year when the government unilaterally rolled back the RCMP's promised wage increases.

The time to move on this is now. I ask for the support of all members to do just that.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)