House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was program.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Conservative MP for Blackstrap (Saskatchewan)

Won her last election, in 2011, with 54% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply November 15th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, that is a really good question because we are under scrutiny all the time. We have a disclosure form now that I filled out recently. I could not believe how much information I had to give to the public. My personal expenses and my personal life are out on the Internet for anybody to see or they could just go down to the office and go through that information. As for my offices and my staff, that is also public information and anyone at any time can easily access that information.

Therefore I do not feel we are in need of the same laws because the problem was the people making the decisions and having control of the money. I do not agree that members of Parliament have to fall under the same legislation but I do believe we are being watched very closely. We are being scrutinized, if not by the people who are out watching how we are spending our money, at least by the people at home, our constituents. It does not matter what I do, I always seem to have somebody questioning something about perhaps my office or what the wages are. We are very open so I do not think we are talking about the same thing in this motion.

Supply November 15th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Macleod.

Today's motion deals with an important matter dealing with reforms to the Access to Information Act. Specifically, it calls for amendments to the act to expand coverage to include all crown corporations, all officers of Parliament, all foundations and, indeed, any organization that spends taxpayers' dollars or performs public functions.

It further calls on public officials to create the records necessary to document their actions and decisions. Moreover, it seeks a general public interest override for any exemptions, so that public interest comes before the secrecy of government.

A plethora of waste and mismanagement scandals involving the federal government and its branches, from the sponsorship scandal, the Dingwall affair, the HRSDC boondoggle and the gun registry fiasco have severely diminished public confidence in the integrity of our public institutions.

Many have suggested that a culture of secrecy and entitlement is now prevalent within the federal government and that this has resulted in a system much more prone to abuses of the public purse.

To restore the public's confidence in the system, we must take action to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the mechanisms of our federal government and ensure the manner in which hard-earned taxpayer money is spent is always in the public interest. Indeed, as a 2003 National Post editorial noted, the “right to access information about one's government is integral to the functioning of a true democracy”.

To ensure that would necessitate a series of actions, chief among them are substantial reforms to the Access to Information Act. This issue is of notable interest to Canadians and the amendments that the motion calls for are extremely important.

Many observers, including Democracy Watch's Duff Conacher, have stated that without serious changes to the act, the Canadian public “will not have the easy access to government information it has a clear, democratic right to”.

Over 20 years ago the House passed the Access to Information Act. The act was intended to permit individual Canadians the ability to request and obtain information about the operations of their federal government. Using the act, any Canadian has the power to find out, for instance, how much money the government has spent on a program or department or what reasoning was behind an action. Members of Parliament, myself included, have used the act to discover, so to speak, what the government is doing behind the scenes.

In sum, the access to information permitted by the legislation is an important way of ensuring government accountability. The act has assisted in bolstering transparency in the federal government since its introduction in 1983. Indeed, Probe International called it “one of the few effective tools available to Canadian citizens that allow them to find out what they want to know about government actions, rather than what the government wants them to know.

However, throughout the years many shortcomings have become apparent. One major problem that many have identified is the fact that the act exempts a significant number of crown corporations and quasi-government organizations from its scope “for no good policy reason”, as that earlier National Post editorial also stated.

Currently, these agencies like EDC and Canada Post are protected from undergoing the same scrutiny that other government departments face. Even though many of them have politically appointed presidents and even though many of them have been involved in the plethora of recent spending scandals, they are not accountable to the same extent. That means Canadians, for instance, in rural communities are barred from finding out why, for example, Canada Post has closed its local post offices in rural communities. This is in spite of the fact that Canada Post and the other exempted crown corporations are taxpayer funded and have an effect on the lives of a large majority of people throughout the country.

Many feel that this veil of secrecy over these important government operations is simply unacceptable and deeply troubling. For instance, Probe International, a Canadian NGO that works to hold government agencies accountable, recently stated that “over the past 15 years agencies of the Canadian government have become more secretive” and chided the government's “excessive and unreasonable use of the Access to Information Act (and agencies' exclusion from it) to withhold information, the disclosure of which would help save taxpayers' money, inform the public of government actions in their name, stop environmental destruction, protect the human rights of innocent citizens abroad, and save lives”.

Most reasonable Canadians would agree with the notion that no government agency or public servant should be able to avoid public scrutiny and responsibility for the way they spend taxpayer dollars or operate. Yet today this veil of secrecy allows selected crown corporations and quasi-government organizations to do just that. They circumvent full accountability and transparency on everything from directives that shape their decision-making to entertainment expenses.

Even though the current government has talked extensively about significant reform to the act, it has continued to hold up important changes to the legislation. As far back as 1994, then justice minister Allan Rock promised to strengthen the access law. However, according to noted democratic reform advocate Duff Conacher, “for the past 11 years the Liberals have successfully delayed this action through distraction”.

Many, like access to information advocate Ken Rubin, are questioning the government's commitment to reform at all. Recently, Rubin stated that instead of bringing forward the necessary reforms, the current government, specifically the justice minister, is committed to a pro-secrecy and stale line of thinking on the need for long overdue changes to the Access to Information Act. He added that, “Undoubtedly, the Liberals...would be relieved and would want if they got a majority (following an upcoming election) to regain control of the House access committee...and its future access legislative agenda”.

Fortunately for Canadian taxpayers, that is not going to happen. Conservative members of Parliament will not cease in their demands for greater transparency and accountability. Why? As former member of Parliament John Bryden stated, experience has shown that “legislated transparency of government institutions does increase efficiency. The bureaucrats may not like it, but public accountability makes good governance”.

Should the Conservatives receive the distinct honour of being chosen by Canadians to govern this country, the first act of a Conservative government would be to introduce a federal accountability act. This legislation would put into place all the provisions we are calling on the federal government to introduce in this motion among other measures aimed at ending the culture of entitlement that many feel has thrived under the current government.

Consequently, I strongly endorse today's motion and its aim of renewing faith in the mechanisms of the federal government, replacing the culture of entitlement with a culture of accountability.

Question No. 196 November 14th, 2005

With regard to funding for Canada Day celebrations, including funding from the Celebrate Canada program, for 2005: ( a ) which organizations and governments received funding; ( b ) how much did each organization and government, broken down by province, receive; and ( c ) were there any pre-existing criteria determining which organizations and governments would be eligible to receive this funding, and, if so, what were they?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 197 November 2nd, 2005

With regard to the Employment Insurance Compassionate Care Benefits program: ( a ) for each fiscal year between 2003 and 2005, what was the total amount of funding allocated for the administration of the program; ( b ) for each fiscal year between 2003 and 2005, what was the total amount of funding for public awareness campaigns, related promotional activities and for other miscellaneous items (i.e. focus groups, polling, etc.) associated with the program; ( c ) for each fiscal year between 2003 and 2005, what was the total level and composition of the staffing for the program; and ( d ) how many people have applied for the benefits each month since March 2005?

Petitions November 2nd, 2005

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present five petitions today from hundreds upon hundreds of residents of the riding of Blackstrap regarding the future of rural post offices.

These citizens from Hanley, Jansen, Glenside, Viscount and Colonsay want their government to know that they value their post offices and they are vital parts of their communities.

Agriculture November 2nd, 2005

Mr. Speaker, the plight of Canadian farmers is becoming increasingly desperate as they face grim financial realities constantly.

Walter Klinger, a farmer from Jansen, Saskatchewan, recently wrote me a letter describing the situation in his own words:

Western Canadian farmers are experiencing the lowest commodities prices, related to the highest input costs in history. This is not only a disgrace for Canadian farmers, it is an outright demoralizing issue.

The government's response to this current crisis is only adding to the grief. To quote Mr. Klinger again:

In other grain producing countries, their respective governments ensure that there are sufficient support programs in place for their producers. Our farmers feed the public out of their own pockets.

The Liberal CAIS program is so complicated and ineffective that you need to pay your accountant upwards of $400 to $500 to file your application, only to learn that you don't qualify.

Clearly, this government's response to the agriculture crisis has failed. It is now time for a government that will implement agriculture policies that actually and really work.

Human Resources and Skills Development October 31st, 2005

Mr. Speaker, recent media reports indicate that the government was altering the deeply flawed compassionate care benefit to allow terminally ill Canadians to name a caregiver of their choice, saying “it is imminent”. However, weeks later Canadians are still waiting for an announcement regarding a timeline for these changes.

Will the minister clearly state when these changes will occur, if they will occur, and what imminent means to the minister? Could it be before an election?

Bank Act October 6th, 2005

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member speak to the bill. I would like him to give me an idea of how this would affect small banks in small towns because he said that the interests of the consumer were very important.

It appears that the more these banks do merge, the services are not there any more. We, in Saskatchewan, for example, who deal with the Royal Bank, we phone our bank 10 miles down the road and our calls go to Winnipeg, which is in another province.

Is that something that might be under the purview of the bill or is it something that is under the purview of each of the banks? I sort of wonder about that. Could the hon. member tell me in simple language how the people would be affected? If he heard from the common people, perhaps witnesses at committee who had concerns about the bill, could he relate to us what some of those concerns were so I could grasp how this affects our small communities and smaller populations in provinces like Saskatchewan?

Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act October 3rd, 2005

Madam Speaker, I think it is a small step toward protecting whistleblowers. However, I understand that some of the flaws still in the legislation will probably have some effect; it will certainly not be protecting Ms. Gualtieri to the point that she would have observed. There were many flaws not addressed in Bill C-23. Then, when it came to Bill C-11, she still had some concerns about the protection. She believes that the brown envelope will probably still be the way for many public servants to disclose wrongdoing. I think she will still have some concerns about protection as far as this legislation is concerned.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act October 3rd, 2005

Madam Speaker, with regard to the changes to the Access to Information Act and refusing information about the internal disclosures of wrongdoing for five years, we were talking about the element of time and how it was originally 20 years. I think it is more important to have it amended so that information has to be disclosed. If we do not allow that information to be disclosed under five years, and to have it protected, then how will we ever expose information that the public needs to be aware of or made privy to? I think it is actually for the best interests of the public and the taxpayers that the clause is in there.