Marlene Jennings

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We receive weekly reports from the auditor general. I have been on this committee only since September 1999.

From what I have seen, some government agencies have enabling legislation excluding their employees from the public service. The CIO is not alone in that. I see nothing mysterious in that. I see nothing hidden or harmful in the fact that the CIO does not have to follow the hiring and promotion policies of the public service.

In fact, this is not at all what bothers the Bloc. The Bloc is irritated because the Canadian government found an effective way to provide information on what it does in Quebec, to make Quebecers understand what the Canadian government represents and how they can benefit from federal programs.

This is why the Bloc is irritated. For many years, even decades—although the Bloc did not exist then—those who want to break up Canada had a kind of monopoly on the information provided to Quebecers.

This gave them the opportunity to paint for Quebecers a nightmarish picture of the Canadian government. It gave them the opportunity to make Quebecers believe that the Canadian government was robbing them of their money, that all Canadians except Quebecers were benefiting from the tax dollars that Quebec was sending to the Canadian government.

Today, by communicating through the various departments, and also through agencies like the CIO, the Canadian government has found ways to make Quebecers aware of federal programs, to explain to them how they benefit from these programs, how their tax dollars are being spent and how these programs are to their advantage.

This frightens the Bloc members. It frightens them because, when people understand what is going on, when they are faced with facts, and not with allegations, fantasy and fiction, they see through what is going on.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the Bloc motion. I should like to read, as my colleague on the other side did, the motion so that everyone in the House is quite clear as to what it is:

That this House condemn the government for having established the Canada Information Office, which gives lucrative contracts to those close to the government party for, among other things, the purpose of gathering, analysing and collating information about a large number of citizens, and that this House urge the government to close that Office.

Before one can speak directly to the motion and determine whether or not it has any basis in fact, whether or not it has any utility for Canadians and for the good governance of Canada, one has to look at the context of the Canada Information Office.

By the way, I will be taking the full amount of time. I rise today to speak about the achievements of the Canada Information Office. In order to do so we need to briefly review the context against which they were realized.

In 1998 the Government of Canada took steps to strengthen its capacity to communicate with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. To strengthen its capacity to communicate with Canadians it gave the Canadian Information Office a mandate for delivering initiatives that reflected the corporate vision of the government.

More specific, the CIO or the Canada Information Office has the mandate to improve communications between the Government of Canada and Canadians. As I mentioned, that means Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including Canadians who live in Quebec, all the Quebec population, of which I am one.

It does this based on three broad objectives. The first is to provide corporate communication, advice and support. The second is to improve co-ordination of regional communications. The third is to strengthen the operational capacity of the Government of Canada on such issues as national unity.

Let us look first at how the Canada Information Office has been improving corporate communication. It continued to survey Canadians to determine their concerns and their information needs. The findings of these surveys have been released publicly over the past year. Our surveys have come up with two important findings. First, Canadians are not very aware of the programs and services of the Government of Canada. Second, they want to know more about them.

Let me repeat for members of the opposition, particularly those who tabled the motion we are now discussing. The first finding of the surveys was that Canadians are not very aware of the programs and services of the Government of Canada. The second finding was that Canadians want to know more about the programs and services of the Canadian government.

The CIO through the various activities it undertakes is working to bridge the gap indicated in the findings of those surveys.

We believe that Canadians have a right to information. We have an obligation to ensure that they know about the services available to them and their families and to take all necessary measures to ensure that they are informed about them. The Canada Information Office is one of these measures.

Other products have been developed in this context. For instance, the CIO helped to produce a Guide to Government of Canada Programs and Services which was sent in June 1999 to 2.6 million homes in rural and remote areas of the country. It was done in co-operation with Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. A total of 26 departments and agencies were involved.

The document was very much appreciated by those who received it. Half of them saved it, 68% thought it was informative, 78% found it easy to use and 56% agreed it helped to improve understanding of what the Government of Canada does.

Not only that, 68% agreed that it was important for the Government of Canada to provide information on its programs and services to Canadians through direct mail brochures sent to their homes or business.

As a result of the guide, there were thousands of calls to the 1-800-O-Canada number and thousands of hits on the Canada site.

The CIO recently piloted the idea of a similar guide for urban Canadians. They were distributed in May and June to nearly 370,000 homes in Quebec City and Saskatoon. The early analysis is showing results similar to the rural guide. This pilot is another example of how the CIO is helping the Government of Canada inform Canadians about its programs and services.

Also in 1999, the CIO successfully tested the idea of letting Canadians know about government services through ads in the weekly newspapers. The CIO will continue this campaign with improvements.

The first wave of ads focuses on concrete priorities such as finding a job. It also promotes the 1-800-O-Canada number, the Canada site, and Service Canada access centres. The ad is being inserted into 1,400 weekly newspapers and will run for three separate weeks during May and June.

With respect to CIO's second objective, improving regional communications, there have been great strides. The CIO is working with the federal regional councils to strengthen the government's on-the-ground capacity to communicate with Canadians.

We believe that it is essential that we become more aware of regional issues and be better able to communicate with Canadians in ways that work most effectively in their part of the country.

With respect to strengthening our operational capacity, the Canada Information Office reaches out to inform Canadians in their own communities. The partnership initiatives program supports local initiatives which inform citizens about government services which are relevant to them. In the past year for example, the CIO worked with other government departments and community partners to support 50 activities and projects of interest to communities, ranging from workshops on the Y2K bug, to a youth project on the elimination of racial discrimination, to a national conference of the community futures development corporation.

Every institution needs to communicate its overall vision. The Government of Canada is no exception. Since receiving its new mandate in 1998, the Canada Information Office has been meeting its challenges with vitality and dynamism. It is to be congratulated, in my view, for that achievement and for positioning itself as a key communications agency in a few short years.

I would like to mention a few other achievements of the Canada Information Office.

As I have already said, the office also helps better inform Canadians about their country. To this end, it contributes to many key events, such as the Canada Conference '99, which marked the 50th anniversary of Newfoundland's entry into Confederation. Who in the House cannot applaud such an activity?

The CIO, together with other federal agencies, organized and sponsored this conference which helped make better known this chapter in our history. Newfoundland's entry into Confederation was indeed an important chapter in our history.

Another activity was veterans week. The Canada Information Office, together with the Department of Veterans Affairs, prepared a promotion campaign for veterans week and the role played by Canada and its veterans during the first world war. What was the result of this activity? The media coverage of veterans week increased by 57% in 1998 as compared to 1997. One cannot say that this event was not a success. It is an event that was successful and that met the goals of the CIO's mandate.

Related activities were held with the help of the CIO. These activities encouraged Canadians to co-operate with the government and other partners in order to promote understanding among citizens.

Here are some examples: South Carleton High School created the website “Unity Peak”, this was the first school to be allowed to name one of the mountain peaks in the Lake Louise area of Alberta. The office contributed to the creation of the website, which enabled the students of this school to tell everyone from sea to sea to sea about their trip up the mountain.

Another activity, “Chez Nous 1998”, was a series of television programs showing the lifestyles, activities and culture of Canada's francophones. Francophones are, as we all know, found from sea to sea. They are not just in the province of Quebec.

The theme of the series was to show such things as Canadian history, current events and sports, and it showcased rising young francophone musicians. Average audiences totalled around 170,000.

Then there were the Y2K bug workshops, which I have already referred to.

The office set up Y2K bug workshops for heads of small businesses and professional corporations. In post-workshop feedback, 95% of participants praised the appropriateness and quality of the tools and information.

Now, I want to return to the motion by the Bloc Quebecois, who allege that the Canada Information Office was created by the government solely for the purpose of awarding contracts to friends.

Since its inception in 1996, the office has adjudicated all its contracts in keeping with treasury board policies. Let me repeat: since 1996, the office has adjudicated all of its contracts in keeping with treasury board policies.

What is more, in 1999-2000 there were public calls for tender for all contracts over $25,000, in compliance with the directives of the minister responsible for the CIO. Contracting out must meet two criteria: ability and deadlines.

What, in reality, is the Bloc motion all about?

It is so clear that yet again the Bloc is out of step with Canadians, that the Bloc is out of step with Quebecers.

We see with the statistics, and I will repeat them, what Canadians think about the work BIC is doing. With regard to the guide that was distributed to over 2.6 million homes in rural and remote regions, 68% of Canadians thought the guide was very useful. Over half of them kept the guide. Seventy-eight per cent found the guide was easy to consult. Fifty-six per cent stated that the guide helped them to better understand what the Canadian government actually does. Sixty-eight per cent indicated that to them, to those Canadians who received the guide, it was important that this kind of promotion of the Canadian government's services and programs take place.

The Bloc is calling for censor of the government for having created the office and is calling for that office to be closed. Yet Canadians have said that the information the office actually produces is not only useful to them but needs to continue. They said that the office is doing a good job in making sure Canadians are better informed about government programs and services.

Yet again, the Bloc is completely out of step with the majority of Quebecers and certainly with the majority of Canadians. But then what else can one expect from the Bloc? It is still advocating the division and breakup of Canada, notwithstanding that for years now the overwhelming majority of Quebecers have said they do not want another referendum. They do not want to know about another referendum. They do not want to hear about another referendum. They want both the federal government and the provincial government in Quebec to get on with the work of providing Canadians, particularly Quebecers, with a good quality of life and good services.

BIC has shown through its achievements over the last four years that it is assisting the government in ensuring that its programs and services meet the needs of Canadians and are known by Canadians.

[Unesco Institute Of Statistics, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, after fierce competition with Great Britain and France, Canada has been selected to be the site of the UNESCO institute of statistics.

Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us what the presence of this institute in Montreal will mean in economic terms for Canada and the Montreal region?

[Lachine Wharf, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, May 4, I made an announcement on behalf of the Minister of Transport on the transfer of the ownership of the Lachine wharf from Transport Canada to the City of Lachine.

Under the terms of this transfer, Transport Canada will make a $250,000 financial contribution, which represents the costs of repairs slated for completion within the next year.

Under the national marine policy announced in December 1995, regional/local port sites, 37 of which are in the Quebec Region, are being transferred to other interests over a six-year period ending on March 31, 2002. In some cases, ports are being transferred as operating ports; in other cases, for other uses.

The Lachine wharf is used regularly for sport fishing and other leisure activities. This infrastructure is used as an extension of the municipal park facilities. It also serves as a sheltering structure for a pleasure boat ramp.

The transfer of the Lachine wharf to the City—

[Competition Act, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. In today's global economy the effects of anti-competitive conduct are not limited by borders. The government needs to be able to enter into mutual co-operation agreements with other enforcement agencies to be able to effectively deal with anti-competitive conduct which crosses borders.

That is exactly what Bill C-471 will do. Would the minister tell Canadians what his and this government's position is regarding Bill C-471?

[Human Resources Development, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the House is well aware, on December 1, 1999 I tabled private member's Bill C-388, an act to prohibit the use of chemical pesticides for non-essential purposes. It was seconded by the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville. The House adopted it at first reading. This bill would amend the Pest Control Products Act as of April 22 which is recognized as Earth Day.

I am requesting the consent of the House of Commons to deem Bill C-388 votable, to deem it adopted at second reading and to refer it to the Standing Committee on Health.

[Witness Protection Program Act, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-223, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act.

I want to thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River for introducing the bill. This matter involves the issue of improving safety and security for spouses whose lives are in danger. It is obvious to me that improving safety and security for victims of spousal violence has or should have the support of the members of the House. It definitely has my support.

When the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River introduced the bill he noted that this was a non-partisan matter. I agree, it is a non-partisan matter. I want to provide my input to this debate in a way that respects its non-partisan matter.

I do not think that there is any real debate that measures ought to be in place to protect victims of life-threatening relationships. I believe that the only questions are what form these measures should take and how we can improve upon what is currently in place. These are important questions that deserve careful review by experts who work in the field of family violence.

In Canada we already have numerous measures against family violence in place. Let us look at some of them. First, we have laws that prohibit and punish the physical violence that is frequently a tragic part of abusive relationships. As we are all aware, however, these laws have not always worked. In the past our society has been far too accepting of family violence. Law enforcement and justice officials themselves have not always been sensitive, and still today are not necessarily as sensitive as they should be to the issue when it was, in the past, brought to them and when, still today, it is brought to them.

However, we have recently made some progress in this area. Through education and prosecution guidelines, we have sought to ensure that the appropriate criminal charges are brought against persons who commit these acts. We have also had success in this regard, although I must agree, as many in the House would state, there is room for improvement. While such measures are not the whole answer, they obviously play an important role in deterrence and in providing sanctions against perpetrators of family violence.

In addition to the standard criminal justice measures against violence, we also have measures which are more specifically relevant to spousal violence situations. An important measure of this type is the prohibition against criminal harassment found at section 264 of the criminal code.

We must remember that criminal harassment, such as stalking, is frequently a prelude to spousal violence. Further, beyond the direct physical violence that it can lead to, stalking can also cause significant harm in and of itself as the constant fear of violence takes it toll on that victim.

The Minister of Justice recently announced that she would recommend that parliament lengthen the maximum penalty for criminal harassment from five to ten years. In appropriate cases, those who carry out criminal harassment would then be subject to dangerous offender provisions, allowing for the imposition of indefinite sentences. That is a move forward.

Criminal code measures providing deterrents and sanctions must work in conjunction with other measures. Shelters and transition houses have played an important part in addressing safety and other needs of family violence victims.

I am sure a lot of members, if not all members in the House, have shelters within their own riding. I have one in my riding and it performs a real service to victims of family violence and to the children of the spouses who are victims of family violence.

I also wish to acknowledge, as was pointed out earlier in the debate, that there was a tragic incident in a Montreal shelter where this safety, which this bill wishes to address, was breached and a woman was killed by her spouse. Such an incident, however tragic, should not take away from the important and positive role played by shelters and the dedicated people who staff them.

The responses to family violence that I have mentioned are not sufficient in and of themselves. Broader prevention initiatives are vital to making a long term difference.

Historically, family violence has been hidden in silence and denial. We have already done much to bring it out into the open but more has to be done. Notably, governments at all levels, the federal, the provincial, the territorial and the municipal, have supported counselling and education to help encourage recognition and reporting of the problem.

In addition, victims receive counselling for immediate trauma and long term psychological harm. It is important to remember, as well, that counselling is not restricted to the victims alone. Prevention can be and has successfully been addressed to those who engage in abusive behaviour. In fact, I have been told that there are over 100 treatment programs in Canada for perpetrators of spousal abuse.

As I have said, such counselling and treatment programs, both for victims and abusers, are supported by governments at all levels. Non-governmental organizations often play a key role in delivering the services.

At the federal level our support is provided through such means as the Family Violence Prevention Initiative and the National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention. These initiatives, and those I mentioned earlier, have made Canada a leader in efforts to put a halt to family violence. Nevertheless, we must still recognize that even these initiatives are not always enough.

This brings me back to Bill C-223. The bill identifies an additional type of assistance that can sometimes be offered. It involves such measures as the relocation of the victims and the continuation of their lives under new identities, away and safe from their abusers. It is a form of assistance similar to that currently offered under a process called New Identities For Victims of Life-Threatening Relationships. Human Resources Development Canada co-ordinates this joint federal, provincial and territorial ad hoc initiative.

As was recognized by members from both sides of the House earlier in the debate on this bill, providing a new identity to victims of spousal violence is a measure of last resort.

The reasons for this are clear. Restarting lives in such a manner can involve considerable challenges and hardship. Therefore, it must be a measure of last resort. We must be careful that the use of such processes does not place additional burdens on persons who are already victims.

This brings me back to the issue of Bill C-223. The witness protection program offers protection to persons who assist law enforcement. It is very much a program with a specific law enforcement purpose. It is typically used in matters of organized crime.

I have been informed that the issue of spousal protection under the witness protection program is one of the options the current new identities working group which the government has set up will be examining. However it is only one among a number of options. In fact, preliminary consultations with victims groups and those who work in the field indicate it might not be the best option. Other options, such as a separate more fully developed new identities initiative, are also being considered.

It is for this reason I ask the House today in a non-partisan manner not to support Bill C-223. During the time that this matter is being examined by a federal, provincial and territorial working group in consultation with victims representatives, we should not go forward with a bill that predetermines and imposes a single option. We should allow for the possibility of a multitude of options. This is especially the case if preliminary consultations have indicated that the option provided under this private member's bill is not necessarily the best option. Instead, we should let those involved in the working group devote their energies to considering the best way to build upon that which we already have in place.

Spousal abuse is a serious issue. Governments at all levels are addressing this issue and are looking for the best options to provide protection to those spouses.

[Competition Act, April 6th, 2000]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-471, an act to amend the Competition Act (international mutual assistance and references) and the Competition Tribunal Act (references).

Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill amends the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to promote international mutual co-operation in civil, reviewable matters to ensure effective enforcement of the law.

As we know, with globalization there are already treaties which allow for this kind of co-operation in criminal matters, but the mechanisms that exist internationally do not apply in matters that are civilly reviewable.

This legislation will provide a framework for exchanging information, especially with the anti-trust agencies in the United States and the European Union, and will allow the Competition Bureau to be in a better position to deal with businesses whose operations span borders.

I hope to get the support of the House for this private member's bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Biochem Pharma Inc., April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry of Canada announced today a repayable investment of $80 million by Technology Partnerships Canada in BioChem Pharma Inc. of Laval for a vast research and development project, which, if successful, will involve investments of up to $600 million and enable the firm to evolve into a fully integrated biotechnology company in the field of vaccines. About 450 highly skilled scientific and technical jobs will be created in Canada over the life of the project.

The goal of this research and development initiative is to allow BioChem Pharma to develop a new platform technology in recombinant protein vaccine. The company will create a range of innovative vaccines that promise safer, cheaper and more effective treatments of bacterial infections in children and adults.

[Bombardier, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the economic good news continues. Yesterday, Bombardier unveiled a record making contract of nearly $3 billion for the sale of 94 regional jet planes. This contract will mean 1,000 new jobs in the Montreal area.

Bombardier also signed an agreement in principle worth $2 billion U.S. with two Delta Airlines affiliates.

Bombardier also intends to create 600 jobs at its Canadair plant in Montreal, and 400 others in its network of suppliers clustered around the city.

This phenomenal order shows clearly that Canada and Quebec have met the challenge of specialization in small jet planes.

Our Canadian government is delighted with such good news, which confirms the renewed confidence in the Canadian economy.