Gerald Keddy

[Fisheries, April 13th, 2000]

I appreciate those comments, Mr. Minister.

[Fisheries, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is negotiating fishing agreements with the first nations in Atlantic Canada but continues to ignore the Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance.

Processors and fishermen must be a part of the negotiations in order for the negotiations to have a chance of working. Will the minister commit to fewer press releases and more industry consultation?

[Access To Information Act, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to address Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.

The bill seeks to amend the act by defining more precisely what records held by the government are to be disclosed and by providing more severe penalties for those who would wilfully circumvent the intent of this legislation.

Before I proceed any further, the PC Party will support the bill at second reading with the hope that further improvement may be made at the committee stage.

As background, the Access to Information Act was adopted in 1982. The act gives Canadians a right to access to information held by federal government departments and its many agencies. It is an important tool for a number of reasons, not the least of which is maintaining public accountability within the federal government.

While the Access to Information Act is a useful and necessary tool that Canadians have at their disposal to ensure government transparency, it is clear to most of us that the Access to Information Act is an outdated piece of legislation. Dating back to the early 1980s, this act has yet to be revised to improve upon its current protections and to accommodate the changing needs and demands of changing times.

This has not been for lack of effort. It is important to note that a number of our colleagues have recognized the pressing need to revamp the act. As such they have proposed their own bills toward this end. One of these bills was brought forth by the member for Nanaimo—Alberni in 1998. As expected, it was voted down by the Liberal majority in the House.

Today we are presented with the most recent attempt to amend the Access to Information Act. I commend the member for Wentworth—Burlington for his initiative in this file. I am hopeful that his colleague will see the wisdom in allowing the bill to pass this stage.

My party has always favoured increased openness and transparency in government because openness and transparency combine to form one of the fundamental tenets of an effective representative government in Canada. They also serve to encourage faith and trust in government, something that is sorely missing from the Canadian political landscape today.

The Progressive Conservative Party is committed to the principles of openness and transparency and has continued to aggressively pursue all reasonable means by which to increase government accountability to Canadians. It was our current leader's government in 1979 that first introduced freedom of information legislation.

Bill C-206 addresses many of the concerns of the Progressive Conservative Party with regard to government transparency. The bill represents a positive step toward eliminating the kind of abusive government Canadians have witnessed under the present regime.

This government's “business as usual” attitude and “behind closed doors” mentality have proven to be destructive on many counts. First, and most obvious, we saw that under the current Access to Information Act the Liberal government almost got away with what is perhaps the most scandalous abuse of government power recorded in the history of our country.

The Liberal government's billion dollar fiasco in HRDC not only points to the party's misuse and mismanagement of public funds, but it also uncovers innumerable counts of unethical use of taxpayers' dollars to buy electoral support. Were it not for a mistake on the part of HRDC in submitting a report to my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, a mistake that we are all thankful he was able to catch, Canadians may not ever have learned of this devastating scandal.

Second, this “we know what is best for you” attitude has resulted in a further alienated, disgusted and cynical population at a time when the government should be doing its utmost to encourage interest in governmental affairs and at a time when public discourse is becoming increasingly distant from Canadians. We need to reverse the damage that the Liberal government has done to the morale of all Canadians and to their trust in the federal government and its agencies.

This is what we need to redress and this is precisely what Bill C-206 seeks to do. Bill C-206 aims to ensure that Canadians have access to the activities, decisions and, more importantly, actions of our governments. This is desirable and it is with enthusiasm that I support the principles and the basic tenets of Bill C-206.

I have a number of particular concerns with this bill that I will outline in brief. First, one of the most questionable parts of the bill seeks to prohibit access to information users who make, and I quote from the bill, “frivolous and abusive requests”.

While on the surface this may seem like a good idea, one that would ensure that users cannot take advantage of the information request mechanism, I am concerned because of the lack of definition as to how the acceptability or admissibility of a request for information would be gauged under this provision. This concerns me because of the subjectivity involved in evaluating requests for information.

I believe that I speak unopposed when I say that in the spirit of fairness and equity, objective measures are usually more favourable than subjective measures. Of course, we should strive for fairness and equity in everything we do. Perhaps we can consider this matter further at a later date should this bill reach the next stage of the process. For now, I am satisfied to have recorded this concern.

I realize that my time may be nearing an end, Mr. Speaker, which is why I will mention only one more concern with this bill. While the previous concern I cited was rather minimal, this one is gravely serious in comparison.

As I understand it, the intent of this legislation is to provide Canadians with increased access to the federal government and to its decision-makers. I support this and I cannot agree any more than I already have with this objective. However, I am concerned because in this bill's earlier life the member proposed a provision to include cabinet confidences, for instance, minutes of meetings, under the Access to Information Act. He proposed releasing them after 15 years. Now, in its revised form, Bill C-206 holds true to the position of the government that cabinet confidences may be excluded from the public domain for 20 years, not 15 as the member had originally intended.

If we are really going to commit to opening the government and to allowing Canadians greater access to decisions of government, then why not release cabinet confidences after 15 years? While I have yet to decide what time period would be most favourable for the release of these and other such documents, I do believe that this matter should be open to discussion and to careful consideration at committee.

Therefore, I will close by offering my support for Bill C-206 at second reading with the hope that my colleagues will allow the bill the proper scrutiny and discussion it merits in committee. Matters such as the ones I have discussed very briefly, the subjective matter of some of the bill's provisions, along with what I will simply call a question mark on the question of cabinet confidences warrant careful consideration at the committee level.

In principle the bill represents a strong step toward winning back the trust of Canadians. If my colleagues are genuine in claiming to want Canadians to trust the federal government again, if they really want Canadians to rediscover their faith in government, then they will allow the bill to proceed to the committee stage for intense scrutiny and close analysis of both its merits and shortcomings.

I urge the House to vote in favour of Bill C-206 at this stage. I have a supplemental in closing. I think it is important to outline some of the chronology of the Access to Information Act, where exactly it came from and what governments introduced it. It comes as no surprise to anyone in the House that the champion of the public right to access government information was the late Ged Baldwin, a Tory member of parliament from Peace River. The first government to introduce the access to information bill was that of the Right Hon. Joe Clark. The Liberal government is now afraid to strengthen the law or to modernize it.

Therefore, the members of the House must seize any opportunity to open up the law so it can be strengthened and modernized. The HRDC scandal is only one example of why we need to strengthen the law. We need to prevent ministers from manipulating the process. We need to use this bill as a starting point to work with the commissioner to ensure a strong law. The information commissioner stated in his last report and at the HRDC committee that the government's record system is in chaos. That is all the more reason why we need a strong access to information law to protect citizens and certainly to protect their dollars.

[Tall Ships 2000, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Halifax, Nova Scotia is going to be hosting Tall Ships 2000 in July after they complete the four month journey across the Atlantic Ocean. Two of the ships taking part in this event are particularly noteworthy.

One is Eye of the Wind , a 40 metre brigantine based in England that will be training young sailors as it sails to Nova Scotia. One high school student from South Shore will be leaving for England in early April to spend one week aboard the ship as it makes its way across the Atlantic. Molly Kleiker is a grade 10 student at Park View Education Centre in Bridgewater. She was selected as one of the hundreds of students who will have an opportunity to learn or improve sailing skills while the ship travels to Halifax.

The Picton Castle is a 44 metre barque that returned to Lunenburg, Nova Scotia last year following its 19 month world tour. This ship will also be participating in Tall Ships 2000.

I know that the students participating in this event will have a wonderful learning experience as they complete this extraordinary voyage. I wish them all best luck.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, March 31st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I certainly want to engage in this debate and to comment on what the hon. member was saying and on some of the faults in the private member's bill he brought forward.

It is obvious to those of us who live in rural Canada that rural mail couriers are not treated fairly and that the tendering system has numerous and obvious faults in it. However our argument would be that unionization of rural mail couriers is not the way to deal with this issue specifically. There are a number of issues.

The hon. member's bill forth not only allows for unionization of rural mail couriers, it also allows for unionization of numerous other postal employees. They are all lumped together in one bill. For that reason mainly the bill is extremely flawed.

The member speaks specifically to section 13(5). Section 13(5) is why the Conservative Party still supports rural mail couriers. Some people have argued that this section discriminates against rural mail couriers. I remind hon. members that the Federal Court of Canada ruled on May 29, 1990 that there were no grounds for a claim of discrimination on the basis of gender or differential treatment between urban and rural residents.

We know that this bill is not the answer to the shabby treatment rural mail couriers have received from Canada Post. As much as I appreciate and support the efforts by the member for Winnipeg Centre to deal with this issue, he really has not dealt with it. What can we do?

MPs from my party, especially the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, have met on numerous occasions with individual mail contractors, with representatives of the Organization of Rural Route Mail Couriers and with representatives of Canada Post to try to resolve some of these outstanding issues. We have made a difference.

Earlier this year the post office introduced a series of new measures which I hope will alleviate a great number of the difficulties contractors have had in the past. These include the following. Rural routes will be contracted on an individual contractor basis. Contractors who in turn subcontract out their routes at a reduced price known as master contractors will no longer be eligible to renew their rural contract. If a master contractor previously held the route, the previous employee or the subcontractor actually performing the work will be the first potential supplier offered the contract at renewal. Rural contracts will be issued for five years with a five year renewal option based on satisfactory performance and tendered after 10 years.

Many other changes have been instituted as well. A negotiated adjustment will be included for the five year renewal option to ensure that market conditions such as inflation are considered. A quality and performance component will be included in the contract renewal and awarding process to recognize the past performance of incumbent contractors. The evaluation of tenders will be based on criteria such as experience, service performance and reliability, image and then cost.

In addition when the contracts are up for bid, Canada Post will make contractors aware of the specifications of the routes they will be performing such as the number of points of call, daily kilometres, number of stops for personal contract items and the amount of ad mail they can expect to deliver. These numbers will be updated annually or more frequently if a significant change occurs, and contractors will be compensated for these changes.

The post office has prepared a handbook, what it calls a delivery reference manual, for its mail contractors. The purpose of the manual is to provide assistance and guidance with a reference book and a phone directory of key individuals at Canada Post they can call when a problem arises. In conjunction with this, local supervisors and postmasters will be provided with an operator's handbook and support training material to assist them in working with contractors.

These measures probably will not prevent disputes from arising. However I feel that the changes announced will bring much greater fairness and openness to the relationship between rural mail contractors and the post office. It also does not preclude additional changes to be made to further affect rural mail couriers to give them a better opportunity to make a living and earn a fair wage. It certainly does not preclude changes being made to the act in the future.

Our party will continue to work with and listen to rural mail contractors to ensure that they earn a fair wage, that they are treated fairly and that Canada Post deals with problems that arise in a timely and equitable manner.

In closing, we have to move away from the tactics that Canada Post has employed against rural mail couriers in the past. Frankly, many of those tactics would have been better off in Chicago in the 1930s than in Canada in the 21st century. We obviously have to make a change.

If the member reviewed his bill and made some fundamental changes to the way it was written, it would be a better piece of legislation. It would be something that would actually help rural mail couriers, and would not confuse the issue of rural mail couriers with a lot of other issues and a lot of other subcontractors at Canada Post.

We can continue to provide service in rural Canada. I depend upon a rural mail courier. He is a very good friend of mine. I have to cross the road to reach my mail box. I understand the difficulties facing mail couriers. The weather is only one of the things they face. The other thing is that quite often my mail box may not be shovelled out as well as it should be. I appreciate the extra work that all Canadians get from rural mail couriers.

We can continue to support rural mail couriers. We can continue to look for opportunities for them to make a better living.

Bill C-238 is not a bad bill, but it has some serious flaws and that is why we will not be supporting this piece of legislation. I would certainly encourage the hon. member to review the bill, to improve it, to take some of the obvious mistakes out of it and to bring it back to the House. We would then take another look at it.

[Fisheries, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister of the Environment's knowledge of the fishery has not improved since he left the fisheries portfolio.

Yesterday, David Bevan from the DFO informed the fisheries committee that expropriation would be used to provide aboriginal access to Quebec crab if they could not buy existing licences.

Who is correct, the Minister of the Environment or those in the know at the DFO?

[Fisheries, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, does this mean specifically that the minister of fisheries guarantees to the House that expropriation of licences will not be used to provide aboriginal access to the crab fishery in zone 12?

[Fisheries, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, is it the intent of the minister of fisheries to expropriate licences to provide for aboriginal entry into the east coast fishery?

[Student Summer Job Action Program, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday I questioned the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of HRDC about the deadline for applications for the student summer job action program. She said the deadline was March 31.

The federal government changed the deadline to March 10, causing a lot of misunderstanding and missed opportunities for students and employers.

Now the government is saying that the deadline is being extended to March 31, but for some reason this information was only released on Friday, March 24. That means that from March 10 until March 24 the program was effectively closed. Now all of a sudden applications are being accepted for another week.

I am sure that this information will be of interest to people who missed the unusual March 10 deadline. However, it makes me wonder how and to whom the government expects to disseminate this information about the extension. All students and employers deserve an equal opportunity to access federal programs like this one. This is another example of the HRDC minister's incompetence.

[Employment, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the HRD minister has changed the application date for the student summer employment program. This was done without contacting former program recipients. This was done without advertising in local papers. This was done without contacting opposition MPs.

Did the minister contact her government MPs to indicate that the application date had been changed?