House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was employees.

Last in Parliament September 2017, as Liberal MP for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity (Newfoundland & Labrador)

Won her last election, in 2015, with 82% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply May 4th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak today to our opposition day motion put forward by the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. I congratulate her for bringing this motion forward.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.

I have had the opportunity to look at the Lobbying Act through my work on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and I look forward to a review of the act in the fall.

The omission of parliamentary secretaries from the list of designated public office holders is either a deliberately concocted loophole or a glaring omission that the government should be falling over itself to rectify.

I fully support the motion to call on the government to immediately close this loophole and require parliamentary secretaries to comply fully with the Lobbying Act in the same manner as ministers are currently required to do so.

I would think that the Conservative government would embrace the opportunity to fulfill its 2006 platform promise to require ministers and senior government officials, including parliamentary secretaries, to proactively record and report their contact with lobbyists.

The Lobbying Act's definition of a designated public office holder is extensive, including ministers, ministers of state and their staff, deputy heads and assistant deputy ministers, and those of comparable rank. It is a long list of people who have considerable influence on the decisions of the Conservative government.

It is a mystery as to why that list does not include parliamentary secretaries. There is no doubt that parliamentary secretaries have privileged access. They serve the ministers' role in question period, in meetings with stakeholders, in relations with the departments, and perhaps most importantly they have the ear of the ministers. They too have influence on the decisions made by the government. I would argue that influence is considerably greater than that of members of the House.

The Lobbying Act defines activities that when carried out for compensation are considered to be lobbying. Generally speaking, they include communicating with public office holders with respect to changing federal laws, regulations, policies or programs, obtaining a financial benefit such as a grant or contribution, and in certain cases obtaining a government contract or arranging a meeting between a public office holder and another person.

When a lobbyist meets with a ministers seeking support for a project, there are two fundamental requirements of that lobbyist, that he or she is a registered lobbyist and that he or she provides a monthly communication report.

Canadians have on-line access on the registry of lobbyists, to the lobbyist's name and business, as well as details of the subject the lobbyist is to discuss with the minister, and also the name of the department and/or other governmental institution in which any public office holder with whom the individual communicates or expects to communicate. Therefore, it is wide ranging.

Let us say the minister, for example, was detained and unavailable to meet with the lobbyist, so the parliamentary secretary is called upon to fill in, in that particular meeting. The same lobbyist sits down with the minister's parliamentary secretary and pitches the very same project and all the paperwork disappears.

Lobbyists need to be registered. Nothing more is asked of them through the Lobbying Act. The parliamentary secretary meets up with the minister later that day, gives him or her a briefing, an update on the proposal, and offers a full endorsement of the project.

What do Canadians know about this meeting that took place? Absolutely nothing.

There is no reason that these two meetings should be treated so differently by the Lobbying Act. If the government is truly committed to transparency, it needs to ensure that all lobbyists and decision-makers are obliged to follow the same rules.

The rules of the Lobbying Act were put in place to meet the goal of increasing accountability. Any lobbyist who communicates with a designated public office holder must file a monthly report, including all arranged communications, telephone calls, meetings or any other communications arranged in advance.

The report must disclose for each communication that took place in a given month, the date of the communication with the designated public office holder, the name and title of all designated public office holders who were the object of the communication, and the subject of the communication.

Simple, straightforward information that should be readily available to Canadians, especially when we are talking about access to taxpayers' dollars.

We know that each minister and parliamentary secretary have unique arrangements in terms of the level of authority and departmental access that is provided to the parliamentary secretary, and it varies from department to department. We acknowledge that. However, we cannot dispute the fact that the opportunity exists for a minister to delegate a significant amount of decision-making authority to the parliamentary secretary should the minister choose to do so.

The Lobbying Act, as it stands today, creates an environment where lobbyists can meet extensively with the Conservative government's key decision makers without anyone ever knowing it happened. It is troublesome that government members will stand here today and boast about the government's record on accountability and transparency while we only have to look at a newspaper over the last couple of months to see it has taken advantage of the loophole to get around the law as outlined in the Lobbying Act.

Ethics April 22nd, 2010

Talk about withholding information, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is even trying to keep the Ethics Commissioner in the dark.

The government has repeatedly claimed to have forwarded the Jaffer-related allegations to the Ethics Commissioner, but today the commissioner said “not true”. All she received was a letter suggesting she call up two named individuals about unspecified serious concerns.

Why will the Conservatives not be forthright with the House? Why are they mired in the Conservative culture of deceit?

Access to Information April 22nd, 2010

Mr. Speaker, access to information in Canada is at risk of being totally obliterated. Delays are eroding Canadians' right to know. Excessive delays in access to information are tantamount to censorship. This is not our assessment. Those are the words of the Information Commissioner.

Why are the Conservatives allowing their culture of deceit to withhold critical information from Canadians?

Snowmobiling Ultimate Rider April 20th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a young man from my riding.

Justin House from Stephenville was recently chosen as the Bombardier Recreational Products ultimate rider. Justin received this honour after going through a rigorous selection process that saw him chosen as a finalist from nearly 1,400 candidates from across North America. The final stage of the selection process involved a trip to Florida, where he had to speak about his passion for snowmobiling.

Through Justin and the distinction he has received from Bombardier, the Stephenville area of my riding will receive invaluable exposure among snowmobiling enthusiasts from across Canada and the United States. Snowmobiling is a big part of Justin's life. He is a past president and director with the Bay St. George Snowmobile/ATV Association and a current active volunteer. Justin's spare time is spent with his wife, Nancy, and children, Adam and Abbi.

I ask members of the House to join me in applauding Justin on achieving this notable title and the positive impact it will have on the Stephenville area.

Ethics April 15th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the minister was not the only familiar face on that Belize trip. Mr. Jaffer also accompanied her and participated in official ministerial events.

Given that he was still an MP and Conservative caucus chair at the time, did the government pay for Mr. Jaffer's travel and does it have detailed records of who he met with while in Belize?

Ethics April 15th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, in 2008, when the former status of women minister represented foreign affairs, she went on a government-funded trip to Belize. On the trip, she met with those at the highest levels of power. However, according to media reports, it is alleged by the Prime Minister's own informant that the minister and Mr. Jaffer also had questionable private business interests in Belize.

Will the government assist a police investigation and proactively release all details of everyone the minister met during her trip to Belize?

Access to Information April 14th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, “totally obliterated” is the phrase used by the Information Commissioner about what is happening to access to information in Canada. She said she has seen “no evidence” of a culture of transparency in the government.

The Prime Minister's chief of staff helped to prove that point at committee yesterday when he refused to answer if political staff had intervened to stop information from being released. Documents about torture have been censored, information requests have been blocked and criminal allegations against a minister have been covered up. Why the secrecy?

Afghanistan March 23rd, 2010

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the minister refused to answer the question.

The Minister of Justice said today that Mr. Iacobucci has received some documents and that he will be able to receive any documents that he needs, but who determines need?

Is it the government's position that Mr. Iacobucci will receive every single document he asks for from 2001 to today from any department, PCO, PMO and the Afghanistan task force?

Afghanistan March 23rd, 2010

Mr. Speaker, this morning before the justice committee, the Minister of Justice refused to say that solicitor-client privilege does not apply to Mr. Iacobucci's employment with the government. This fits into a three year pattern of deny, deflect and delay. Conservative stamina for subversion seems to be limitless, but we will continue to seek the truth.

Can the minister tell the House, will the minister be able to silence Mr. Iacobucci by using solicitor-client privilege?

Afghanistan March 19th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, at this very moment, the International Criminal Court is conducting a preliminary investigation into the conduct of the Canadian government, as it relates to torture.

Also at this very moment, our government continues to hand over prisoners in Afghanistan to a serious and real risk of torture, even though the U.K. has ceased transferring prisoners altogether because of this very risk.

With the possibility that Mr. Iacobucci's review could take months, if not years, why is the government leaving Canada exposed to the ICC investigation?