Judy Foote

[The Budget, June 8th, 2011]

Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to speak to the budget. First, I want to acknowledge the support of the people of Random—Burin—St. George's. I am honoured again to have the privilege to represent them. This is the second time they have elected me in this federal capacity. I represented part of the riding in the District of Grand Bank for 12 years, so this is a continuation of the opportunity again to represent those constituents.

Random—Burin—St. George's is very much a rural riding. It has 180 communities and spreads from one end of the province to the other. For anyone to have some kind of understanding and appreciation for the riding, one really has to travel there. There are eight isolated communities and people can only get to them by ferry. To campaign in the riding of Random—Burin—St. George's takes a lot of effort, especially to get to the 180 very rural communities, but it is important to do so.

It is because of my riding being so rural that I have a real appreciation for the lack of jobs in those very small communities, for any kind of measure taken that would impact on the jobs or services being supplied in rural communities, especially federal services.

People think it is very easy to cut federal services in very small towns and that there really is not a lot of flak as a result of cutting a federal service in a small town. They think that a few people cannot be too much of a concern and their protests about the closure of any kind of federal facility will not have much of an impact. That is the wrong way to approach the removal of services, particularly federal services.

When I look at what is happening in the budget with respect to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I am really surprised. I guess “disappointed” is a better word because it clearly shows that there is no appreciation or understanding for how important the fishery is to the economy of Canada, not just to Newfoundland and Labrador, the Atlantic provinces or the Pacific coast but to the entire country. Obviously, any type of realization of income from any part of the region impacts other parts of Canada.

What is being proposed for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over three years is more than $80 million being cut. For me that is a serious issue and one that must be responded to, addressed, and brought to the attention of anyone who is willing to listen, especially the Conservative government.

It appears the Conservatives have no understanding or realization of how important the fishery is to the entire country, especially when we talk about fish as a product, source of food and protein. What really bothered me was some of the commentary around the reduction in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the blanket commentary when the government talks about trying to create more effective service and efficiencies in the system.

One line that really bothered me was that Conservatives are doing this to focus on the government's priorities. I have a real issue with that. If they are going to remove in excess of $80 million from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, my first question is, what about the priorities of the fishers and the industry? Did any consultation take place?

The Conservatives are talking about doing a strategic review, yet they have identified the amount of money that has to be removed from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. If a strategic review is going to be done and the removal of that amount of money has already been identified, at some point in time it must have been decided where that money would come from, what services would be impacted, and what jobs would be lost.

Yet, we are told that the strategic review has not even taken place, but that amount of money is going to be cut from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

That is a concern for me because it will impact on services and jobs. Cutting money from ACOA, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, is a real issue for us in Atlantic Canada. That is our economic development engine. The money that flows through ACOA from the Conservative government, or from any government for that matter, is money that is used for economic development, especially in small communities that really do not have access to government funding in terms of grants and do not have access to money from banks. These communities look to ACOA to partner with them in terms of trying to create employment and put some infrastructure in place.

Those are serious issues that are going to impact the people in Atlantic Canada. When the government is talking about removing in excess of $31 million from ACOA, jobs are going to be impacted, people's lives are going to be impacted, and economic development is going to be impacted. Those are all serious issues.

Let us look at Marine Atlantic. Marine Atlantic services the Gulf of St. Lawrence, between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Actually the ferry lands in my riding in Port aux Basques. Looking at that, it is really an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway. That is how we view Marine Atlantic.

When I am looking at Marine Atlantic and seeing a cut of $6.6 million over three years, clearly jobs are going to be impacted, services are going to be impacted, and yet the government does not identify what those services are going to be. What has the government done? It has created a crisis among employees who really do not know whether or not they are going to have jobs. They do not know what services are going to be impacted.

This is a serious issue for us in Newfoundland and Labrador, just as it is serious issue for the people in Nova Scotia when we consider that this is in fact an extension of our Trans-Canada Highway. Those are serious issues when that amount of money is being removed without consultation. Yet, when the government says it is going to do a strategic review, it has not consulted. How can the government just say that it is going to remove that amount of money from these particular entities? These three impact negatively on Newfoundland and Labrador.

I look at what is happening with rural post offices, another serious issue for us. Here we are looking at the hours of employees in rural post offices being cut, and yet the government says it has a moratorium on the closure of post offices in rural communities.

Well, there can be a moratorium on the closure of post offices, but in the end it will impact on the service provided if there is a reduction in the number of employees' hours. Again, what does that mean? It means that federal services are being impacted. These are serious issues.

Let us look at the marine safety sub-centre in St. John's. The government is going to move what the minister regrettably called “a call centre” to Nova Scotia. I have no problem with moving anything, but things cannot be moved without consulting, talking, and finding out if it is the right thing to do. Clearly, this is not the right thing to do.

It is a distress centre. There are 10,000 miles of coastline around Newfoundland. If we do not realize what this means in terms of moving that distress centre, the service offered through that distress centre out of Newfoundland and Labrador, then the government does not understand the importance of marine safety.

This is not about just fishers. This is about anybody who utilizes the waterways as a highway, whether it is tourists or businesses other than fishers. A lot of trade takes place. A lot of boats come into Newfoundland and Labrador. Somehow no one has taken into account the impact of going down this path on these issues.

If the government is going to look at strategic review exercises, if it is going to look at trying to find ways of saving money, for Heaven's sake it should work with those who are going to be impacted.

Because of the Conservative government, we have the largest debt in our history. We are looking at $56 billion. If we are looking at a debt of that magnitude, then the issue for us is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador or Atlantic Canada or Canada at large did not create that debt, so the government should not put burdens on their backs to try to solve it.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 21st, 2011]

With regard to Recreational Infrastructure Canada projects in Newfoundland and Labrador: (a) in which federal riding is each project located; (b) what is the description of each project; (c) what is the expected cost of each project; and (d) what is the expected completion date of each project?

[Political Financing, March 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this is not an accounting dispute. This is not a disagreement over legal fine print. Senior Conservatives decided they would forge documents, lie to Elections Canada and they could now face jail time. They did it in 67 ridings. The former Conservative member for Simcoe-Grey refused to do it because she knew it was wrong.

Will the Prime Minister stop disparaging Elections Canada, stop attacking his own public prosecutor and get his MPs to return the money they owe to Canadians?

[Political Financing, March 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, last night the House, the Canadian people's House, voted to have the Conservative government repay money it illegally obtained from election fraud. Nine Conservative MPs, including two cabinet ministers, got money back in their bank accounts.

This is a fraud based on 67 forged invoices, where $200,000 of taxpayer money went into and is still sitting in Conservative bank accounts.

Why has the Prime Minister not ordered that these illegal moneys be returned to Canadian taxpayers?

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, March 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, clearly there will be an onus on the U.S. government to work with the Canadian government. Canada will acknowledge that it is prepared to share the information with it but recognizing as well that Canadians have some concerns. Yes, we expect that the government will be able to do a review of the information that has been shared, how that information has been handled and the impact of sharing that information on Canadians.

We expect to be able to do that in the first two years. If it is not working, if we find there has been an abuse of that sharing of information and if the U.S. has not lived up to its end of the bargain, then obviously that is an issue that we will have to deal with. However, at the end of the first two years we will know whether we need to make further adjustments to a bill like Bill C-42.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, March 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, when we put forward these amendments, the idea was to work with the government and the other parties in the House of Commons to ensure that Parliament works.

First, we talk about the need to conduct a review of the measures two years from now and every five years thereafter so that two years from now we will be able to see if these amendments are as effective as they can be; second, with regard to the data transfer to the U.S., the original version of the bill would have allowed the Canadian government to add other countries by order in council; and, third, airline and travel agents would be instructed to ensure that passengers travelling are well aware that their information will be shared with the U.S. It is very important, first and foremost, that passengers have a good appreciation and understanding of what the result would be of Bill C-42.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, March 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the important matter of Bill C-42, concerning the personal information of Canadians on flights over the U.S.

Although we will support the legislation, I will speak to the history of the bill, how we got to that point and why we can now support the bill.

First, it should be noted the way in which the government went about introducing the bill. As is the practice of the government, which we have become all too familiar with, it either tables legislation that it has no plans on following through with or it introduces legislation that it is not serious in following through with in such a way that it limits serious debate.

The government waited until the last sitting day before the summer recess to introduce this bill, a move to avoid parliamentary scrutiny over these measures by leaving little time for debate.

As it stands right now, the Aeronautics Act already allows for the disclosure of personal information by airlines to foreign states if the flight lands within the foreign state. The act also provides a legislative authority to create the no-fly list intended to identify potential terrorists in airline passenger lists and block them from boarding domestic or international flights.

The no-fly list, however, has proven seriously problematic. Further, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has expressed concerns with the measures enabled under the Aeronautics Act.

The Privacy Commissioner has testified before committee that the Canadian government should ask the United States to quickly destroy the information it will be collecting on airline passengers flying over the U.S. because there is nothing to prevent that information from being shared on a wide scale basis both in the U.S. and abroad.

The Privacy Commissioner has also noted that there is nothing in the new secure flight policy that precludes the Department of Homeland Security from sharing passenger names, birthdates and genders, passport information and travel itineraries with immigration and law enforcement authorities at home and abroad.

This assessment of the policy contradicts the assertions of the public safety minister, who told the transport committee that the information collected on Canadian passengers was intended to be used solely to protect aviation security.

No wonder there are some serious concerns when we have conflicting views from the minister and the Privacy Commissioner.

By further changing the act to force Canadian airlines to disclose personal information of Canadian passengers who are simply flying over the United States, Bill C-42 would further endanger the privacy rights of Canadians.

Maintaining public security, however, is important and a balance must be achieved. Liberal Party members expressed this concern when the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Liberal members have amended the bill in three specific ways: first, the House of Commons will be required to conduct a review of these measures two years from the date they come into force and every five years thereafter; second, this data transfer will be limited to the U.S. in legislation, as the original version of the bill allowed the Canadian government to add other countries by order-in-council; and, third, airlines and travel agents will be required by Canadian law to inform passengers of this impending data transfer before their ticket is purchased.

This may only be a one paragraph bill that would make a minor change to the wording of one section of the Aeronautics Act, however, these changes would be significant in practice. The bill could effectively be used as legal justification for airlines and travel agents to supply foreign governments with personal information about passengers when a plane they are on flies through a country's airspace. Currently, the act allows for this transmission of information only when a Canadian plane lands in that country.

Let me take a moment to go over the history of these provisions in the Aeronautics Act.

At question is subsection 4.83 (1). This allows for the cabinet to make regulations regarding the transmission of certain information to foreign governments. Subsection 4.83 essentially creates legislative exemption to the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

The supporting regulations remain the critical component of this piece of the framework.

Schedule 1 of the regulations lists the category of information that may be automatically provided to an authorized foreign government. This includes basic information such as name, gender and passport number.

Schedule 2 of the regulations provides what detailed information may be provided to a foreign government. These details include the passenger's address, phone number, class of ticket, for example, business or economy, method of payment for the ticket and whether the passenger in question actually paid for the ticket.

The final schedule in these regulations, Schedule 3, lists the governments and agencies that are authorized to request or receive any of the information listed in either of the first two schedules. There is only one country and agency on the list: the United States and its commissioner of customs.

The regulations in question were introduced in 2001 during the 37th Parliament. Bill C-44 amended the Aeronautics Act to allow the transmission of this information to foreign governments. This was in response to new U.S. requirements for any plane landing inside that country.

Subsequent U.S. legislation requires other countries to provide the U.S. government with details of any passenger in a plane flying over the U.S., not landing, but actually flying over the U.S.

The Liberal Party has very strong concerns about the erosion of Canadian sovereignty expressed in the bill. We also have very real concerns about the privacy of Canadians and about the ability of the government to conduct foreign affairs in a way that benefits Canadians.

The balance between national security and personal freedom is a crucial balance for any government. I, as well as my Liberal colleagues in the official opposition, am very concerned that Bill C-42 goes too far. Hence, the need for our amendments.

For starters, the bill was not designed to protect the national security of Canadians. It was designed to transmit information to other countries for flights outside Canadian airspace. Once this information is in the hands of a foreign government, we cannot control what they do with it.

In May of last year, assistant privacy commissioner, Chantal Bernier, spoke to the transport committee. She said that the U.S. government, the only government currently authorized to receive this data, could keep the personal information of Canadians anywhere from seven days to 99 years. She also stated that the U.S. could use that information for any purpose, even those not related to air-land security, such as law enforcement.

When the United States passed the patriot act in the aftermath of September 11, it caused concern to many nations around the world. The patriot act allows the U.S. government unfettered access to and control of information about citizens from all over the world. It is no small matter to put private information of citizens into the hands of the U.S. government, where it will be subject to the wider net of the patriot act.

We must be concerned about any law that allows information about Canadians not accused of any crime to be put in the U.S. intelligence machine. We could be creating a situation where the government helps to provide a foreign government information that is used to prosecute Canadians without any formal judicial process.

It should be clarified that these are not information-gathering agreements. Rather the legislation would create a one-way flow of information out of Canada and into the hands of foreign governments.

In passing the legislation, we are creating a legal framework that will require diligent monitoring. It is important that we exercise our right to ensure that Canadians are protected. Hopefully, we can do that with the amendments that we put forward, which are now a part of this. As well, we must ensure that we stay on top of this and monitor very closely what is done over the course of the time.

We must understand that in creating this legislation we are opening the door for other countries to ask the same things. We are saying publicly that we are willing to provide personal and private information about our citizens to other countries. This is a troubling development that we must be willing to abandon if it proves to be more sinister than good.

Just because a Liberal amendment has been adopted to limit this information sharing with the U.S., it does not prevent other countries from now wanting to negotiate similar information transfers. Therefore, we need to be very vigilant in terms of what the government will do once this bill has been passed and can move forward with it.

[International Co-operation, February 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, for months we have heard different excuses. First the funding did not meet CIDA's priorities. Soon after the Minister of Immigration went to Israel and said it was because KAIROS was anti-Semitic. Now we have seen the handwriting. We know that CIDA recommended the funding, but the decision was later reversed.

Who told the minister to cut the funding for KAIROS?

[International Co-operation, February 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we know that not one minister in the government is allowed to make a decision without the Prime Minister's approval. The Prime Minister and his office pull the strings and his cabinet members are the puppets.

The minister responsible for CIDA has misled the House and misled Canadians about why she cut funding for KAIROS, and we all know why. She was ordered to do so.

Why can she not simply tell the truth and admit she was just following orders?

[Points of Order, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to request unanimous consent to table the document, “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State”, which says:

Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the use of all powers vested in them. This demands constant attention to their parliamentary duties, including being present in Parliament to answer honestly and accurately about their areas of responsibility—