Laurie Hawn

[Emergency Management Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a very quick short answer to the hon. member's good but lengthy question is yes. Once again, as mentioned by the previous speaker, the answer is yes. Of course it applies to municipalities. The municipalities work through the province to the federal government when they need assistance in whatever way is required by the emergency in question.

Frankly, I do not really care what happens in London, England, but I do care what happens in Canada. The purpose of Bill C-12 is to ensure we have a good, solid, coordinated national, as in federal, provincial and local authority, organization to deal with whatever emergency situation comes up.

That is the long way to say yes it does include municipalities.

[Emergency Management Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to join my colleagues in support of this very important legislation.

Bill C-12 explains and confirms the federal government's leadership role in coordinating major emergency response measures. Once adopted, the Emergency Management Act will enable Canada's preparedness and ability to respond to emergencies to keep pace with evolving threats. My honourable colleagues have already highlighted some of the changes included in the bill before us.

That said, allow me to elaborate on one particular aspect of the bill: the protection of critical infrastructure in Canada and the importance of physical and technological infrastructure to national security.

When we speak of infrastructure, we tend to think of roads, bridges and buses, but in this modern era the term has come to mean much more. Indeed, a long list of installations and services has become essential to our economy and our way of life. The wilful or accidental destruction or compromise of this critical infrastructure constitutes a genuine emergency. What is more is that the interdependent nature of our critical infrastructure means that an attack in one sector can have serious and cascading impacts on others.

In the energy field, for instance, we think of electrical power utilities, grids, natural gas and oil production, transmission systems and nuclear power plants. In the health sector we are talking about hospitals, clinics, blood supply facilities, laboratories and drug manufacturing plants. There is the agricultural and food industry as well from crops to distribution. We need clean drinking water and waste water management facilities.

Transportation is about roads and highways, but it is also about air, rail and marine modes of transport, both passenger travel and freight. Defence and chemical industry based manufacturing is another critical factor, which also makes it a potential target for sabotage or terrorism. The same can be said for some government services and installations, particularly monuments and other sites of key national significance. We also need to protect safety related facilities such as hazardous material depots.

Another vital sector of infrastructure involves information and communications technology. This includes Canada's sophisticated telecommunications and broadcasting systems as well as computers and networks.

The Emergency Preparedness Act, which still governs our emergency management activities, was passed in 1988. Few Canadians even had home computers then, let alone Internet access, email, wireless hand-held devices and all the electronic conveniences that we take for granted today and, frankly, curse sometimes.

Information and communications technologies are more than just a convenience. They have become the backbone of our contemporary society, supporting every other piece of infrastructure. Unfortunately, this digital backbone can be sensitive to disruption either through sabotage, accidents or natural events. The consequences can be calamitous. We need only think of the eastern Canada-western Quebec ice storm of 1998, the Ontario northeastern U.S. power blackout of 2003 and hacker attacks that have unleashed their disruptive viruses or worms across the Internet.

We recovered from those setbacks and learned from each of them. One of the things we learned was the paramount importance of strengthening the security and integrity of Canada's infrastructure, both the physical and the electronic. That is where the proposed emergency management act comes in.

Under the proposal before us, the legislation would make federal ministers responsible for identifying risks to critical infrastructure within their jurisdictions. Once the risks are identified, ministers would be obliged to prepare, maintain, test and implement emergency plans to address those risks. The plans would set out how each federal department would continue to operate in an emergency. They would also specify measures to assist the provinces and territories at the request, and by extension, municipalities and other authorities.

Given the broad range of installations and services that we now consider critical, it is clear that emergency planning poses a significant challenge. What is more, an estimated 85% of Canada's critical infrastructure is owned or operated by the private sector. How does the government coordinate so many players, not all of them under federal authority?

Information sharing is essential to public safety. As the majority of critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector, it is important that there is a willingness to share information on threats and vulnerabilities. Take for instance the case of international crossings. Emergency planners need to know where a particular facility may be vulnerable to infiltration by a saboteur or a hacker. Perhaps it is a structural weakness that might not withstand a powerful earthquake or bomb. Operators have been perhaps naturally reluctant to share vulnerability assessments and other confidential third party information with governments because they do not believe that existing legislation is sufficient for its protection. Bill C-12 proposes to amend the Access to Information Act to explicitly protect this type of sensitive information.

Bill C-12 brings much-needed updates to our current emergency management legislation.

First of all, it recognizes the importance of critical infrastructure and holds all federal ministers responsible for identifying risks associated with infrastructure in their area of responsibility.

Secondly, it sets out management mechanisms for those risks, including the coordinated development and execution of emergency management plans.

Finally, in an effort to facilitate joint planning, this bill would be the first to protect the confidentiality of information the government receives from the private sector in the course of preparing emergency management plans.

Those are important innovations that would help Canada better withstand major emergencies. I call upon my hon. colleagues to lend their support to this worthy and necessary legislative initiative.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I was very impressed by his address and his statistics. I do have a question for him, however.

First, when one builds a house near a golf course, one expects golf balls. When one builds a house near an airport or a rail yard, one expects noise, which is not to say we should not do something about that when we can. However, people should wonder why they got such a great deal on their house.

There are some great ideas. I was not aware of the green coaches. First, does my colleague know how much they cost? Second, who should pay for things like that or for any sort of improvements that would ameliorate some of the issues about which he talked? Should we pay through tax credits to private companies to encourage economic growth or should we pay directly, out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, to organizations like CN?

[Canada Transportation Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I just caught the last few minutes of the hon. member's speech, but I want to take him to task a bit on one aspect of that, and that is the issue about flight attendants.

Given the current climate of rampant anti-Americanism promoted by some parties in this House, if we ask Canadians whether they want something more like Canada or more like the U.S., we will get a biased answer. With respect to the question of flight attendants, the question should be: Do we want Canadian airlines to have the same standards as every other air transport jurisdiction in the world when it comes to the number of flight attendants per passenger, or do we want Canadian airlines to simply stick with the Canadian system which is 40:1 versus 50:1?

Does my hon. colleague understand that every other air transport jurisdiction in the world adheres to the 50:1 ratio?

[Canada Elections Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I also appreciate his support for common sense legislation that Canadian taxpayers willingly support for the benefit of all Canadians.

This includes Canadians living in the lovely province of Quebec.

I also appreciated his clarification of his party's raison d'être and I would ask him this simple question. Given that he supports what the government and this Parliament are doing in this regard, would he take that word back to his constituents and his party's constituents in Quebec, that this Parliament and government are working in the area of democratic reform to the benefit of Quebeckers and all other Canadians?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my hon. colleague's comments, but I will point out that Edmonton is a long way from Ottawa, although I love Ottawa as well.

I do thank her for the observation. I am a rookie in this place, but one thing I came here to do was to cooperate with members of all parties, because we all have something to offer to this place and we all have something to offer to Canadians.

We can do it in a much more effective manner if we are willing to walk on each other's road a mile or two to get something done together that will advance the issue, whatever it is, for all Canadians. I am very proud to be a small part of this. I look forward to doing that for a very long time in representing Edmonton Centre or any other riding that the hon. member would like to put me in.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest and, I have to admit, a little amusement to my hon. colleague's question. I can assure him that the three ridings he mentioned in fact will have Conservative members of Parliament after the next election.

I will point out, as has been pointed out already, that there is a theme here tonight. It seems to be “pick on the Minister of Public Works and Government Services night”. That is fair. This is a democracy. Members can pick on anybody they like.

We are not skirting anything. We are taking on accountability head-on. We are taking on the lack of accountability and ethics and the corruption we have seen in previous governments for the last many years head-on.

Senator Fortier has agreed to run in the next federal election, as the member well knows. He has said that many times. He is a man of great integrity and great ability. He is doing a tremendous job in his current portfolio, and he is certainly not the first senator who served in the cabinet of Canada with great distinction. He continues to do that. I very strongly suspect that after the next election he will be a member of this House and will continue in an important cabinet role.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to talk about the most important new legislation in Canada's history with respect to cleaning up the way politics is done and the way government is run. That, of course, is the federal accountability act.

Before I proceed, let me say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

I knocked on over 40,000 doors in the two and a half years leading up to the last federal election. My riding of Edmonton Centre is extremely diverse, with people of dozens of ethnicities, all income levels, all lifestyles and all levels of interest in politics.

There were many issues discussed at those 40,000 doorsteps, but one stood out above the others, especially in the couple of months leading up to January 23. That issue was corruption and accountability. I heard it at door after door.

I have to say that I took a lot of abuse for things that I had not done, but because I was on their doorstep as an aspiring politician they attributed it to me anyway. That is okay. I did not mind taking the abuse because I felt very strongly about it, and that was one of the reasons I got into this in the first place. I felt that something had to be done to clean up our act.

I will not belabour the history behind why it became such an important issue to Canadians. That sad story is well known. Voters rendered their judgment on January 23.

Canadians voted for change, positive change, and that is exactly what the federal accountability act delivers. I sat in as a substitute for three hours of the committee's work in bringing Bill C-2 to this point. I was very impressed with the level of cooperation between all members and their commitment to delivering accountability to Canadians.

The committee ground through hundreds of clauses, hundreds of pages and dozens of witnesses in six weeks. It was an enormous task. I was extremely impressed to watch a small part of it and to be a small part of it. Ultimately,on behalf of Canadians, the committee has delivered a great piece of legislation back to the House. It deserves our full support.

Of the many provisions of this historic legislation, I would like to highlight two.

The first area I would like to address is that of making qualified government appointments. The current process does not fully respect Parliament and it is inconsistent. The current system is not as transparent and merit based as it could be and should be.

To correct these shortcomings, the federal accountability act will do several things. The federal accountability act will institute a uniform approach to appointing officers and agents of Parliament and ensure a meaningful role for Parliament in the process.

Bill C-2 will create a public appointments commission in the Prime Minister's portfolio to oversee, monitor and report on the selection process for appointments to government boards, commissions, agencies and crown corporations.

The federal accountability act will also allow the Chief Electoral Officer to appoint returning officers, following an external appointment process, with provisions that ensure the merit principle is applied.

Finally, the act will remove the entitlements of all ministers' staffs to priority appointments and instead allow them to apply for internal competitions for public service positions for up to one year.

What this means is that Canadians can be assured that the appointments process is approved by Parliament, that government appointments reward merit while being open and fair, and that the potential for politicizing the public service is reduced.

I would also like to address the area of cleaning up the procurement of government contracts. In another life, I was intimately involved with what was the largest military procurement at that time, the CF-18 program. The program spanned two governments, one Conservative and one Liberal. On balance, it was a pretty good program, with some interference on the part of government, but not an inordinate amount.

About a dozen or so years later, we had the Sea King replacement that has stretched on and still is not resolved. That was primarily due to unbelievable government interference in the process, which had potentially disastrous consequences for the brave men and women flying that aircraft.

As the largest purchaser of goods and services in Canada, the government must have a bidding process that is fair, open and transparent. Canadians will be able to have confidence in the procurement process, which will include an overarching statement of principles on procurement, one that commits the government to promoting fairness, openness and transparency in the bidding process.

Canadians will know that contracts include integrity provisions.

The federal accountability act will create a procurement auditor who will review procurement practices, handle complaints from potential suppliers, review complaints regarding contract administration, manage an alternative dispute resolution process, and submit an annual report to be tabled in Parliament.

The government will also engage an independent expert to review draft policy on managing procurement to reinforce a fair, open and transparent procurement process.

We will introduce a code of conduct for procurement. That will consolidate conflict of interest and anti-corruption policies, which will be applicable both to suppliers and to public service employees.

Finally, government will provide more resources and greater regional presence to the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises within Public Works and Government Services Canada. That will help businesses maintain access to government opportunities and will ensure them fair treatment.

What does this mean for Canadians? It means that Canadians can be assured that government will have a procurement process that is free of political interference. We will have a clear process in place to address complaints from potential suppliers. The little guy in all regions of Canada will also have the ability to compete for government contracts.

There are many other provisions of the federal accountability act that I do not have time to cover in detail. I could go on about whistleblower protection; strengthening auditing and accountability within departments; banning secret donations to political candidates; reforming the financing of political parties; strengthening the role of the Ethics Commissioner; toughening the Lobbyists Registration Act; cleaning up government polling and advertising; and ensuring truth in budgeting with a parliamentary budget authority.

They are all important to making our political process more trustworthy, because if Canadians do not feel they can trust us, then they have no reason to vote for us or to even care about the political process. We simply could not allow that to happen. The implementation of this act will go a long way to restoring Canadians' confidence in this institution.

It will not be enough to pass the act and then not abide by its provisions. We will all have to walk the talk. Canadians will be watching us all closely and we will not let them down. If we do, we do so at our peril. I am sure that all members of all parties will take that responsibility seriously. I look forward to being part of that parade.

The President of the Treasury Board, his parliamentary secretary, their staff and all members who served on the committee have done Canadians and Parliament a great service. They deserve great credit as well as the gratitude of all Canadians.

When I go back to Edmonton Centre this summer and spend time with the 93,000 voters and 122,000 people to whom I am responsible, I will be proud to talk about the great work that all members of the House did in passing the federal accountability act.

The shortcomings of political ethics and accountability were a major motivator for me to get into this line of work in the first place. I am happy to say that the passing of the act will go a long way toward justifying that decision to myself.

I look forward to the next 40,000 doors in Edmonton Centre and I urge all members to pass this great piece of legislation for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Income Tax Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. friend's remarks. In a previous life, I sold RESPs. I have never heard anybody condemn the RESP program. Would people like more to be done? Absolutely they would.

However, I would like to ask three maybe slightly technical questions. I may have missed it in his earlier remarks. Is the hon. member suggesting we retain the Canada education savings grant, as well as making contributions tax deductible? Are we talking about tax deductibility on a limit of $2,000 that currently qualifies for the CESG or on $4,000 that is allowed to be put in every year? Has the hon. member costed out what this would cost, in terms of revenue to the government?

[Stanley Cup Championship, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Cinderella is alive and living in Edmonton. Unfortunately, on the way to the Stanley Cup championship last night, the Edmonton Oilers' victory chariot turned into a pumpkin as they lost a heartbreaking game seven to the Carolina Hurricanes.

Despite that loss, the Edmonton Oilers defied all odds and can be extremely proud of the hard work, determination and undauntable warrior spirit that took them to the brink of hockey's holy grail.

As inspirational as the Oilers were on the ice, the fans gave us another real and important lesson. Fans in both cities were an appropriate metaphor for respectful international relations as they showed us how two rival teams, cities and countries can still respect each other despite fierce competition.

In both cities the fans sang and cheered the other team's national anthem with gusto. It brought a tear to my eye and a shiver to my spine.

I am sure that everyone in the House and across Canada will join in congratulating the Stanley Cup runner-up Edmonton Oilers, the champion Carolina Hurricanes and the fans from both cities.