Frank Valeriote

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2012]

With regard to the Agriculture Flexibility Program (Agricultural Flexibility Fund or AgriFlexibility): (a) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of applications to the fund; (b) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of projects funded; (c) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the total funding under the program; (d) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, what has been the average time in days from (i) the date an application was received to the date the application received approval, (ii) the date an application was received to the date the contribution agreement was signed, (iii) the date the application received approval to the date of the public announcement of the project; (e) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of projects which required an extension past March 31, 2011; (f) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the amount spent on public announcements of projects; (g) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, how many times were government aircraft used to transport officials to announcements related to the fund; and (h) for each individual project sponsored under the fund to date, (i) what was the project’s internal file number, (ii) what was the name of the project, (iii) on what date was the application received, (iv) on what date was the application approved, (v) on what date was the project announced publicly, (vi) on what date was the contribution agreement signed, (vii) what was the total federal funding received, (viii) what was the cost of any public announcement related to the project, (ix) did the government pay for any federal official to travel to each announcement in (viii) and, if so, what are the names of these officials and was a government-owned aircraft used to transport them, (x) what was the address of the project, including postal code and federal constituency name, (xi) what was the political party affiliation of the Member of Parliament representing the riding on the date the project was announced?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2012]

With regard to the Community Adjustment Fund: (a) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of applications to the fund; (b) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of projects funded; (c) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the total funding under the program; (d) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, what has been the average time in days from (i) the date an application was received to the date the application received approval, (ii) the date an application was received to the date the contribution agreement was signed, (iii) the date the application received approval to the date of the public announcement of the project; (e) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, what is the number of projects which required an extension past March 31, 2011; (f) for each fiscal year and as a total, since April 1, 2009, what is the amount spent on public announcements of projects; (g) for each fiscal year and overall, since April 1, 2009, how many times were government aircraft used to transport officials to announcements related to the fund; and (h) for each individual project sponsored under the fund to date, (i) what was the project’s internal file number, (ii) what was the name of the project, (iii) on what date was the application received, (iv) on what date was the application approved, (v) on what date was the project announced publicly, (vi) on what date was the contribution agreement signed, (vii) what was the total federal funding received, (viii) what was the cost of any public announcement related to the project, (ix) did the government pay for any federal official to travel to each announcement in (viii) and, if so, what are the names of these officials and was a government-owned aircraft used to transport them, (x) what was the address of the project, including postal code and federal constituency name, (xi) what was the political party affiliation of the Member of Parliament representing the riding on the date the project was announced?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, January 30th, 2012]

That's not true.

[The Environment, December 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the revisionist history heard from the government benches in recent days, it was a Liberal government in 2005 that created Project Green, a series of regulations and programs to implement our Kyoto commitments and build a sustainable and competitive economy.

Doubting the science behind climate change, the Conservative government set about dismantling Project Green when it came to power, cancelling $10 billion in funding that would have seen us reach 80% of our targets and, more important, would have created green sustainable jobs while fighting greenhouse gas emissions at the same time.

Since 2006, we have been on a descent from our internationally recognized position of leadership on the environment, now hitting bottom with our withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol.

The environment is not a partisan issue. It is too important for talking points. Canada needs a plan and it needs to implement it immediately. As a developed country, we must lead the way by creating green, sustainable jobs, cogent ways to combat our harmful emissions and set an example for developing countries to follow.

[Privilege, December 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this is in response to the comments by the government House leader.

First, Justice Campbell did not comment on the validity of Bill C-18 because he was not asked to. He made no comment one way or the other. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you should not give any weight to the suggestions by the government House leader on that point.

Second, no injunction was granted because no injunction was sought. Mr. Speaker, you can give no weight to that comment by the member opposite.

Third, and this is the point I made very briefly, the government has an obligation to follow the law if it is changing the law, just as surely as it has an obligation to follow the rules of this House and all procedures associated with it when we are making new laws.

Those are my three points and I thank you again for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.

[Privilege, December 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this question of privilege to request, in recognition of the decision made yesterday by Mr. Justice Campbell of the Federal Court, and the need that this House be in compliance with the rule of law and be seen by all Canadians to actively demonstrate its willingness to accept and defer to the rule of law, that you reconsider the basis of your earlier ruling stemming from the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the member for Malpeque, on October 18 of this year.

It is now unambiguous that as members of Parliament our privileges have been violated as a result of our participation in the Minister of Agriculture's single-minded mission to dismantle the Wheat Board without first consulting with and determining the will of western Canadian wheat and barley farmers, as he remains required to do.

In light of the ruling of the Federal Court, dated December 7, 2011, in the case of the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, it is now apparent that this honourable House was forced to participate in a debate that is now, and was then, contrary to the rule of law.

In his ruling yesterday, Mr. Justice Campbell ordered the following declaration be made:

--the Minister failed to comply with his statutory duty pursuant to section 47.1 of the Act, to consult with the Board and to hold a producer vote, prior to the causing to be introduced in Parliament Bill C-18,--

The very same argument was made at that juncture by the member for Malpeque, the member for Winnipeg North, and me on October 18. In fact, it has been the position put forward by this party from the very beginning of the Minister of Agriculture's quest to fulfill his ideological obsession.

Let farmers decide. It is a simple enough precept.

Indeed, prior to our last general election on May 2, 2011, a then keen Minister of Agriculture assured farmers in Minnedosa, Manitoba, and in mid-March 2011 that he would not act arbitrarily and that the wishes of farmers would be respected.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the May 2 election, having finally won the majority it coveted for so many years, the Conservative government no longer felt it necessary to grant western grain farmers the very vote on the issue they were guaranteed by statute and was assured them by the minister.

Instead, the government spoke at length about the mandate given by Canadians. Which mandate? There is no mandate that enables the government to trample on the rights of western Canadian grain farmers, or any other Canadians, with impunity. What is the evidence of this complete lack of regard for the law by the government?

In the face of the words of Mr. Justice Campbell where he said, “The second and most important effect is that the minister will be held accountable for his disregard for the rule of law”, the Minister of Agriculture replied, “I can tell you that, at the end of the day, this declaration will have no effect on continuing to move forward. Bill C-18 will pass”.

This is important. The minister does not understand that while the Conservatives can change the law, they cannot break the law while changing it any more than they can ignore procedure within this very House when we make new laws.

Why is it that Parliament or government should be any less bound to laws than they are to the procedures in the House when passing those laws?

Many prairie farmers no doubt voted Conservative, but they did not vote for Conservative candidates only to see their democratic rights stripped from them as soon as the ballots were counted.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to Chief Justice Fraser's comments in Reece v. the City of Edmonton, 2011, cited at paragraph 3 of Mr. Justice Campbell's ruling, where the Chief Justice states:

When government does not comply with the law, this is not merely non-compliance with a particular law, it is an affront to the rule of law itself.

Moreover, in Justice Campbell's decision at paragraph 27, he makes reference to a memorandum of fact and law of an intervenor in the case before the Federal Court, which states:

As the Applicants note, western farmers relied on the fact that the government would have to conduct a plebiscite under section 47.1 before introducing legislation to change the marketing mandate of the CWB. Disregarding the requirements of s. 47.1 deprives farmers of the most important vehicle they have for expressing their views on the fundamental question of the single desk. Furthermore the opportunity to vote in a federal election is no answer to the loss of this particular democratic franchise. Until the sudden introduction of Bill C-18, Canadian farmers would have expected the requirements of s. 47.1 to be respected.

When originally introduced by a Liberal government in 1997 and finally passed in 1998, the intention of the bill introducing section 47.1 was to empower farmers with the necessary self-determination before the government could unilaterally or fundamentally alter the Canadian Wheat Board.

At that time it was argued, and I quote:

Throughout its history the Canadian Wheat Board has been governed by a small group of up to five commissioners, all appointed by the Government of Canada without any requirement that anybody be consulted and legally responsible only to the Government of Canada. But in today's dynamic

--this was back in 1997--

and changing marketplace, producers have made it clear that they want the Canadian Wheat Board to be more accountable to them. They want more control....

...empowering producers, enshrining democratic authority which has never existed before, providing new accountability, new flexibility and responsiveness, and positioning farmers to shape the kind of wheat board they want for the future.

The institution of the Canadian Wheat Board is considered so sacrosanct that codified in the statute is a mechanism designed to protect farmers from a government arbitrarily removing the strength and clout of an agency that markets and sells wheat and barley at the best possible price on behalf of all western Canadian grain farmers.

It is for this very reason that in his ruling yesterday Mr. Justice Campbell stated, and I quote:

I accept the argument that the CWB's democratic marketing practices are “significant and fundamental' because they are long standing, and strongly supported by a large number of the some 17,000 grain producers in Western Canada.

On October 18, Mr. Speaker, you spoke to your inability to rule on the legality of a bill, as it was the responsibility of the courts to decide. Well, now the courts have spoken, and just as we argued then, without first having consulted with the Canada Wheat Board and conducting the required plebiscite pursuant to section 47.1, the bill is illegal. These are exactly the circumstances that the member for Malpeque was rightly trying to steer this House away from: a situation wherein this House and its process is in contravention of the law, as is the participation by each of its members in such process.

According to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 111:

A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means.

Not only have we debated and voted on a bill that was not in the proper form, but our participation and the bill itself are illegal, as the bill did not respect the rule of law, let alone the farmers it affected most. Introducing a bill that was not in the proper form and was in violation of the rule of law for failure to follow the process dictated by section 47.1 has obstructed and interfered with our privileges by non-physical means.

Our Constitution, which we are all collectively responsible to uphold, maintain and protect, is so much more than just a written text; it is also an organism that is responsive to a number of underlying quintessential elements, foremost among them the rule of law.

The government continues to argue with impunity that it need not be bound by the legislation of a past government and that Parliament is supreme. While I agree that Parliament is indeed the paramount Canadian institution, it too is subject to the rule of law. In this case, the process that the minister ought to have followed as set out in section 47.1 of the Canada Wheat Board Act. Given this abuse and other abuses the Speaker is now considering, such as the case before us for the member for Mount Royal, what further abuses can we expect?

At paragraph 67 of the Quebec secession reference, the Supreme Court wrote the following:

The consent of the governed is a value that is basic to our understanding of a free and democratic society. Yet democracy in any real sense of the word cannot exist without the rule of law. It is the law that creates the framework within which the “sovereign will” is to be ascertained and implemented. To be accorded legitimacy, democratic institutions must rest, ultimately, on a legal foundation. That is, they must allow for the participation of, and accountability to, the people, through public institutions created under the Constitution. Equally, however, a system of government cannot survive through adherence to the law alone. A political system must also possess legitimacy, and in our particular culture, that requires an interaction between the rule of law and the democratic principle.

Through any number of actions, the government time and time again demonstrates its willingness to abuse, ignore and delegitimize democratic institutions, be it the Speaker's contempt ruling of spring 2011, the thoroughly outrageous deceit it has spread in the Mount Royal area about its member of Parliament, or its complete contempt of democracy and the rule of law in dealing with the outcome of the Canadian Wheat Board.

At the end of every week, I go home to my constituents, as every member in this place does. We are accountable to them. If anything must prevail, regardless of our party's affiliation, we must be able to say to them that we followed the legal process. This is what we have fought and died for in other lands.

It is not too late for the Minister of Agriculture to appeal to the Prime Minister to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate to suspend deliberation on the bill at least until the end of the proceedings of the appeal, because if he fails to do so and the Federal Court ruling is upheld on appeal, we shall again find ourselves in the same embarrassing, unfortunate and antidemocratic circumstances in which we find ourselves now. Should the subsequent ruling favour the Canadian Wheat Board, the government could finally and rightfully hold the farmers' vote that is so richly deserved by western wheat farmers; if it does not, then the matter can proceed.

Parliament is supreme--not the Minister of Agriculture , not the Prime Minister, not any one of the members opposite, but Parliament as an institution. Barring an immediate decision by the government to reconsider its ill-conceived actions, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to find that the actions of the minister and the government, which Mr. Justice Campbell declared to be conduct which is “an affront to the rule of law”, have violated our privilege as members and have sullied the honour of this venerable institution.

Accordingly, I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that you should find the matter a prima facie case of privilege. I would be prepared to move one of the following motions: that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further study and recommendations to the House, that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint senators of the Federal Court ruling and ask that in light of this ruling, all action on Bill C-18 be suspended.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 7th, 2011]

With regard to the Rural Secretariat (RS) and the Co-operatives Secretariat (CS): (a) what is the total number, assigned at each of the Secretariats for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012, of (i) full-time employees, (ii) part-time employees, (iii) contract employees, (iv) temporary employees; (b) for the government’s response to each part of (a), (i) what are the different occupational groups and levels assigned at each of the Secretariats for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012, (ii) how many employees are in each of the occupational groups and levels assigned at each of the Secretariats for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (c) what is the breakdown of the total number of employees assigned at each of the Secretariats for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012 who work in (i) the departmental headquarters in Ottawa, (ii) regional offices across Canada, (iii) sub-regional offices across Canada, (iv) district offices across Canada; (d) what is the total number of full-time, part-time and contract employees assigned to each program since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (e) how many contracts have been signed by the government to provide goods and services to each of the Secretariats for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (f) for the government’s response to part (d), (i) which companies were awarded contracts to provide goods and services to each of the Secretariats, (ii) what were the goods and services provided for each contract, (iii) what were the amounts of each of the contracts, (iv) how many contracts were awarded without a competitive solicitation of bids; (g) what is the annual budget for each of the Secretariats for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (h) what are the total expenditure costs, broken down by type, for each fiscal year since 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (i) for each of the fiscal years from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012, what was the total amount of federal funding allocated by each Secretariat (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district, (v) broken down by the Statistics Canada Postal Code Federal Ridings File (PCFRF), (vi) broken down by the “forward sortation area” (FSA) as defined by Canada Post, (vii) broken down by type of funding or expenditure, including grants over $25,000, grants under $25,000, contributions over $25,000, contributions under $25,000, contracts over $10,000, contracts under $10,000, transfer payments, program expenditures, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures; (j) for each of the fiscal years from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012, what is the total number of agencies, organizations and individuals that applied for federal funding at each of the Secretariats (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district, (v) broken down by the PCFRF, (vi) broken down by the FSA, (vii) broken down by type of funding or expenditure, including, grants over $25,000, grants under $25,000, contributions over $25,000, contributions under $25,000, contracts over $10,000, contracts under $10,000, transfer payments, program expenditures, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures; (k) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what was the total number of agencies, organizations and individuals to which federal funding was allocated from each of the Secretariats (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district, (v) broken down by the PCFRF, (vi) broken down by the FSA, (vii) broken down by type of funding or expenditure, including grants over $25,000, grants under $25,000, contributions over $25,000, contributions under $25,000, contracts over $10,000, contracts under $10,000, transfer payments, program expenditures, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures; (l) for each of the fiscal years from 2001-2002 to 2011-2012, what was the total number of agencies, organizations and individuals whose applications for federal funding were rejected by each of the Secretariats, (i) across Canada as a whole, (ii) broken down by province and territory, (iii) broken down by municipality, (iv) broken down by electoral district, (v) broken down by the PCFRF, (vi) broken down by the FSA, (vii) broken down by type of funding or expenditure, including grants over $25,000, grants under $25,000, contributions over $25,000, contributions under $25,000, contracts over $10,000, contracts under $10,000, transfer payments, program expenditures, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures; (m) for each of those agencies, organizations and individuals receiving funding as per the response to part (k), what are the names of the agencies, organizations and individuals who received funding in any fiscal year that was less than the total funding received by that same agency, organization and individual in the previous fiscal year, including, for each such agency, organization or individual, (i) the municipality, town, or city in which the agency, organization or individual is located, (ii) the electoral district location of the agency, organization or individual, (iii) the address of the agency, organization or individual, (iv) the FSA of the agency, organization or individual, (v) the total amount of funding allocated to the agency, organization or individual in each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012, (vi) the type of funding or expenditure, including grants over $25,000, grants under $25,000, contributions over $25,000, contributions under $25,000, contracts over $10,000, contracts under $10,000, transfer payments, program expenditures, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures allocated to the agency, organization or individual in each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (n) for each of those agencies, organizations and individuals whose applications for funding were rejected as per the response (l), what are the names of the agencies, organizations and individuals that had received funding in a previous fiscal year, including, for each such agency, organization or individual (i) the municipality, town, or city in which the agency, organization or individual is situated, (ii) the electoral district location of the agency, organization or individual, (iii) the address of the agency, organization or individual, (iv) the FSA of the agency, organization or individual, (v) the total amount of funding allocated to the agency, organization or individual in each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012, (vi) the type of funding or expenditure, including grants over $25,000, grants under $25,000, contributions over $25,000, contributions under $25,000, contracts over $10,000, contracts under $10,000, transfer payments, program expenditures, operating expenditures, and capital expenditures allocated to the agency, organization and individual in each fiscal year from 2004-2005 to 2011-2012; (o) what are the criteria used by the government to evaluate applications by agencies, organizations and individuals for (i) grants over $25,000, (ii) grants under $25,000, (iii) contributions over $25,000, (iv) contributions under $25,000, (v) contracts over $10,000, (vi) contracts under $10,000, (vii) transfer payments, (viii) program expenditures, (ix) operating expenditures, (x) capital expenditures; (p) how have the criteria listed in response to (o) changed since 2006; (q) what is the process by which applications are evaluated for (i) grants over $25,000, (ii) grants under $25,000, (iii) contributions over $25,000, (iv) contributions under $25,000, (v) contracts over $10,000, (vi) contracts under $10,000, (vii) transfer payments, (viii) program expenditures, (ix) operating expenditures, (x) capital expenditures; and (r) how has the process described in response to (q) changed since 2006?

[Protecting Canadians' Personal Privacy Act, December 7th, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-379, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (visual recording of persons in their residence).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Scarborough—Guildwood for seconding my private member's bill.

We are quite fortunate to live in a time where we glean so many positive benefits from technological developments. That said, many of these developments have serious implications for such basic matters as privacy.

In the past, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court and other provincial courts have ruled that an individual's expectation to privacy in public areas is limited at best. While people may take offence to a neighbour making or attempting to make a visual recording of them in the privacy of their home or backyard, inadvertently or otherwise, presently it is not an offence to do so unless the crown can prove the victim was harassed, fearful or that the act of recording was of conduct sexual in nature. Barring those circumstances, a victim has to sue the person taking the recording, an exercise only the wealthy can afford.

The bill would effectively alleviate the victim from having to explain his or her activity on his or her own property, as innocent or private as it might have been.

What is worse is the retention of these recordings, which could be made public, disseminated to a specific audience or kept for personal reasons without the knowledge of those who had been recorded.

This private member's bill is drafted to capture those situations where the act of making or attempting to make a visual recording, or the publication, attempted publication or possession of the recorded material, whether made deliberately or recklessly, are made illegal, regardless of the intentions of the person recording and without the need for the crown to prove that the victim was harassed, fearful or had the use or enjoyment of his or her property interfered with in any way.

People deserve the opportunity to use and enjoy their own home and property, perhaps their last bastion of privacy, and conduct themselves as they wish without concerns that any of it is being recorded so long as the conduct is not criminal in nature.

I hope that when the bill comes before the House I can count on the support of all members of this place.

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

[Organ Donations, December 5th, 2011]

Madam Chair, I want to thank the member for Vancouver Centre for her thoughtful and informed remarks. They bring to mind an event I attended in the summer, the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Mother Daughter Walk. I met a very lovely woman there, Janet Parr, who had the opportunity to give some of the opening remarks. She spoke to me later of the incredible need for organ donation. She herself has embarked on an incredibly onerous campaign to raise awareness in our community and elsewhere.

I thank my friend for her remarks about the need for awareness.

I read an interesting statistic that said 90% of Canadians have indicated that they would want to be an organ donor, but the system is too complicated. Could the member tell the House about those complications and what might make them uncomplicated?

[Business of Supply, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague from Etobicoke North did not tell members, in her modesty, is that she is a member of a Nobel prize winning team that has studied climate change. I would consider her an authority.

While Conservatives spew deceitful, rehearsed lines and talking points, which concerns and alarms the people from Guelph that they are doing absolutely nothing about the environment, we have on the other hand the government's own round table on the environment and the economy, and the Conference Board saying that not only have their targets been set too low but the Conservatives are not passing regulations or developing programs that will even meet those modest targets.

However, I am encouraged by my friend's comments about the ability to join the environment and the economy, to help the environment and create jobs at the same time. I wonder if she could talk to us a bit more about the need to join the environment and the economy.