Mauril Bélanger

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 17th, 2012]

With regard to Canada's Economic Action Plan 2012, within the Heritage portfolio: (a) with respect to Library and Archives Canada, (i) where will positions be cut, broken down by branch, by division and by role, (ii) which programs and which services will be cut or eliminated; and (b) with respect to the Federal Libraries Consortium, (i) which federal libraries will be cut or eliminated, broken down by location, (ii) what will be done with the collections formerly maintained by any eliminated federal libraries?

[Committees of the House, September 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in the report tabled here today, the Liberal Party also tabled a supplementary report, but not a dissenting report. I invite anyone who reads the report to note the 16 recommendations we have made.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, June 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations.

To begin with, the title of this bill is all wrong. It would have been better to call it “Do as I say, not as I do”. This bill is asking aboriginal communities, the first nations, to do what the government is not prepared to do. I will give two examples, but there are many more.

The first example concerns the government's intention to eliminate 19,200 public service jobs, in accordance with the budget tabled this year. Since the budget was tabled in the House, more than 20,000 people have already received a notice indicating that their jobs may be affected. People are trying to figure out how many jobs will disappear.

The President of the Treasury Board is hiding behind a so-called requirement to abide by a provision in collective agreements to maintain his silence. This provision allegedly requires him to notify the incumbents of affected positions before making the information public.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada even asked the President of the Treasury Board to release the overall figures. PSAC representatives understand this provision but are still asking the President of the Treasury Board to disclose this information. However, he still refuses to do so, even though the president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada made the same request.

According to an article by Manon Cornellier in today's Le Devoir, the president fully supports the full disclosure of this information, as long as it does not identify the members concerned. The President of the Treasury Board could easily give an overall figure, but he refuses to do so. He even refuses to disclose this figure to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

So the government is asking the first nations to fully disclose the figures concerning specific people, yet it is not prepared to obey Parliament's own laws, this country's own laws, by disclosing information. However, this information is necessary to understand the scope of the measures in the budget. As I mentioned earlier, the bill we are discussing this evening should instead be called “Do as I say, not as I do”.

The other example is that of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is asking for information that he is authorized to have by law, but that the Treasury Board secretary refuses to give to him. We are headed for an interesting showdown. We have a Parliamentary Budget Officer whose very position was created by this government at the beginning of its mandate in 2006.

I have had the opportunity—on more than one occasion—to carefully examine the piece of legislation that created that position. Perhaps you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we examined it very carefully during a meeting of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament. Indeed, the problem we had was knowing where the Parliamentary Budget Officer should fit in. So, having a good grasp of this piece of legislation, I want to share the legal opinion that the Parliamentary Budget Officer made public at the beginning of the week: the law does give him the right to have this information, which the government refuses to provide.

Here we have two examples of the government's refusal to be transparent. And yet one of the primary duties of parliamentarians on both sides of the House—not only on this side, but also on the government side—is to ensure that we have the information we need in order to verify that the government is in fact doing its job.

It is impossible for us to do this work when there is no transparency. Asking parliamentarians to support a bill that imposes draconian transparency on the first nations that the government is not even prepared to consider itself borders on hypocrisy. Parliamentarians have a constitutional mandate to verify the government's actions and figures. They have to have this information before they can support the plans that are presented to them.

Other aspects of the bill are very troubling to me. One of my colleagues spoke at length earlier about the simple fact that aboriginal communities have been encouraged for some time now to take charge, to develop businesses, to move forward and to create jobs, wealth and capital. Many have done just that.

If we approved the legislation before us without making any changes to it—I am going to take a few minutes because I am on a roll—we would be asking the first nations who took the advice they were given to disclose all their trade secrets. The government itself refuses to do so, and rightfully so, for crown corporations that have to remain competitive.

The bill that the Conservatives are asking us to pass does not protect companies belonging to first nations and would require them to fully disclose to all competitors all the information and secrets that allow them to operate in a competitive world. We cannot support that.

I would also like to quickly address the fact that the government is adding to their burden. This was mentioned earlier: 60,000 reports are submitted to the department each year. There are approximately 600 aboriginal bands. That means that every year, each band has to submit an average of 100 reports, or approximately one report every three and a half days. And now the government wants to add to that. This would create an administrative burden that would prevent them from meeting this obligation. And the government is asking us to support this as though it were no big deal.

In less than 10 minutes, I have pointed out three glaring inconsistencies in what the government is asking others to do but is not willing to do itself. Since I have 20 minutes, I could go even further. This does not make any sense. If the government really wants to go ahead with this, it should at least agree to some amendments.

I would be remiss if I failed to bring up the last point because all my colleagues mentioned it. I have been here for quite a while now. I have had the opportunity to work in seven Parliaments since I was first elected, and this is the first time that I have seen the government completely refuse to conduct any consultation. They do not consult us at all.

We are the elected representatives of the people, and the government decides and dictates everything: process, dates, what we are going to do, when and how. It has no intention of consulting the official opposition, the third party or the people who are concerned about its bill—in this case the first nations. It is absolutely shameless. I was in cabinet when this agreement was being negotiated. There was our colleague at the time, Andy Scott, who was the Minister of Indian Affairs; the hon. member for St. Paul's; and other colleagues.

It took a year and a half to negotiate the agreement with aboriginal peoples. There were respectful and structured consultations that produced results and made progress. Solutions were found in this place. The government has decided to impose a bill requiring full disclosure.

The first nations themselves had agreed to the creation of the position of auditor general. It was in the Kelowna accord. Contrary to what we will be told and what has been constantly repeated, funding of $5 billion over five years was allocated. It was in the fiscal framework, as the member for Wascana would say. It was in the budget envelope. It had been negotiated. The weekend before the government fell, in Kelowna, every premier, without exception, and all first nations chiefs, without exception, supported the Kelowna accord, which would have eliminated the gap in the circumstances and quality of life that existed between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians. There was still a gap in terms of education, housing and health.

The Kelowna accord would have helped eliminate this gap within five years. We finally would have had something to be proud of in our relationship with Canada's aboriginal peoples. What did the government do when it took office? The first thing it did was tear up the Kelowna accord claiming that there was no accord, that it was some agreement scribbled on a napkin somewhere and that no funding had been allocated. That is not true.

I was in cabinet at the time. I know what was negotiated. I know that everyone agreed. If we had had the Kelowna accord, our first nations would not be in the situation they are in today. If the government has a modicum of respect for Canada's first nations, then it will go talk to them. Let the government go talk to them before imposing this type of bill. This is no way to go about things. We live in Canada and as far as I know, we live in a democracy. However, I am starting to have some doubt about that given everything I am witnessing in this Parliament and in the committees.

I cannot help it; I have the time and I am going to use it. There is a phenomenon in this Parliament that is very indicative of what this government does with regard to first nations and other groups it does not agree with. It does everything behind closed doors.

Committees are struck and instead of debating in public, instead of being transparent as the government wants the first nations to be, what do the Conservatives do? They come to the committee meeting, they move that it be held in camera and, because they have a majority and the decision cannot be debated, the meeting is held in camera. I call that the new definition of a black hole. Everything that is said in camera remains sealed forever. Consequently, all discussions are held in camera instead of in public. The voters, the people who sent us here to represent them and to work for their well-being, can no longer follow the work done in committee. That is shameful.

I hope that one day, perhaps when an election is looming and the members across the floor are beginning to feel the heat, they will come to their senses and put an end to this crap. This really is crap. They treat the members of this House, who are duly elected by their constituents, like people who are incapable of public debate, when they are the ones who are afraid of it. This just is not working anymore.

When the time comes to vote on Bill C-27, I invite my colleagues to allow it to go to committee, but we probably will not have a choice, since the Conservatives have a majority. Let us hope that in committee, an ounce of common sense will prevail and the most shocking, hypocritical and contradictory elements of this bill will be amended and removed to ensure that the first nations are treated with the respect they deserve.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not play games here. If he wants to read my speech, he can get Hansard tomorrow morning and provide it to anyone. He can get a paper copy or get it electronically; it is up to him.

I personally always have been pro trade. I believe that as a trading nation, we are advantaged by having trade agreements that are respected both by us and the countries with which we have the trade agreements. I have had some difficulties with the way the Americans have treated the free trade agreement because sometimes I wonder if, indeed, they see it as free trade as opposed to trade that suits them. We have had these kinds of experiences.

As a trading nation, we benefit from trade agreements. As long as trade agreements are fair, negotiated openly and transparently and are respected, no one will have any problems with me.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1990s, I experienced a similar situation when we came to power and inherited a $42 billion deficit.

We had to reduce the number of public servants. We went about it in a completely different way. People knew when their jobs were going to be cut. They also had access to a range of benefits over and above the minimum legal or collective agreement requirements. As many have said repeatedly, lots of people were upset that they were not laid off because they were not entitled to those benefits.

At the time, nobody left unwillingly. People left the public service willingly. That is not the case this time around. Two or three times more people are being told that they could be out of a job, instead of just the people who will really lose their jobs. Imagine the tension that creates in an office where 10 workers know that five jobs are going to be cut. Ten people get the notice and have to compete with each other. That is just great for team spirit, morale and productivity.

That is exactly the kind of terrible situation our public servants are dealing with now.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak on Bill C-38, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget. If the bill were simply to implement certain provisions of the budget, it would not have become such a big problem. The problem is not just here in the House—as we saw last week and again today. The problem can be felt across the country.

I have heard a multitude of comments from the people I have the honour of representing in the House. They are extremely concerned by the government's approach of introducing a catch-all bill into which they are stuffing all kinds of things. People are well aware, for example, of the importance of the oversight body at the intelligence agency. The elimination of this inspection office concerns them tremendously. That has nothing to do with the budget.

I want to mention a number of points. First, I want to talk about the public service. There has been talk that the budget will eliminate 19,200 jobs. That is not quite accurate. They have forgotten to mention that, in the previous two budgets, there is already a loss that could go as high as 6,000 other jobs. There is no mention of fixed-term appointments that expire at the end of March, for example, and that have not been renewed. Thousands of jobs were not renewed when they expired.

The real number, according to most experts, is more than 30,000 jobs. I think the government is deliberately trying to provide inaccurate information.

Nonetheless, the method for coming up with these lay-offs is quite extraordinary. The government chose to give the employees a letter, in which they may learn that their position is affected, even if that does not necessarily mean they will lose their job.

The problem is that these letters are being given to two to three times as many people as positions being eliminated. There is a general sense of uncertainty being created among all public service employees. This distress is completely unacceptable. The government is creating a divisiveness that will cause public servants' productivity to plummet. Then there is the matter of the unnecessary fear and anxiety being created at the individual level. In my opinion, this approach never should have been adopted and this should never have happened.

I heard that there are some people who have been told that their positions are affected, but they still do not know what the outcome will be. This is truly an odd way to go about this, especially now that some public servants are being told not to talk about this situation publicly. I am talking about the public servants at Parks Canada or in the science sector. I find it very troubling that public servants are being told that the government no longer trusts them and that they are not entitled to speak, when the role of a public servant is to tell the employer the truth. “Speaking truth to power” is a value that is absolutely ingrained in our public service. I think it is being undermined by these initiatives that are denying people the right to speak. When it comes to the public service, the budget is not exactly promising.

This goes beyond these issues. If a person has the right to speak because he is not a public servant and has a job at an environmental agency, for example, then he is suddenly declared a dangerous radical. If the government cannot stop people from talking then it attacks their funding, either by eliminating it or asking Revenue Canada to review the agencies' documents. Even funding that comes from individuals abroad gets questioned. This does not give a very good impression.

On another point, I also wanted to talk about seniors.

OAS is moving from 65 to 67 for people who qualify. Most have spoken about it. There is no justification whatsoever for this. If there were justification on the economic front, then perhaps. However, the government has refused to share its studies and information to demonstrate effectively against the views of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and Chief Actuary, who have said that there is no justification. Yet, we are asked to vote for it, which is something I just cannot do.

On foreign aid, I will read a comment that I received from a constituent. She states:

I am writing to you as my member of Parliament because I am so upset that our government is reducing our foreign aid budget. Astoundingly, they are doing it on the backs of the poor.

We should be proud that in the recent past we have helped those in the developing world by investing in the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria and have successfully treated four million tuberculosis sufferers and saved half a million lives. We are on the brink of finally realizing an AIDS-free generation and eradicating diseases like TB and malaria? So why jeopardize the achievement of these life-saving goals?!!

Yes, the federal government is facing some tough economic challenges but cutting back on foreign aid and pushing the world's most vulnerable further into poverty is not the way to balance the budget.

Why don't we do what the UK has done? What it has done in terms of foreign aid is incredibly generous and humane. Even though the country is facing the worst austerity measures since the second world war it will increase foreign aid spending by 40% and is committed to meeting the 0.7% target set by the OECD by 2015.

Why doesn't Canada follow in the UK footsteps? The UK has similar economic problems but it is not fighting the problems on the backs of the poor!! Where is Canada's generosity and humanity?!

I strongly urge you to keep the issue of the cuts to foreign aid on the front burner in the House of Commons. Why don't you make a statement or raise a question in the House of Commons about the cuts to foreign [aid] and express some of my views? I would appreciate that very much.

Thank you for the work you are doing in a very difficult environment.

Yours sincerely,

Judith Barbara Woollcombe

I thought I would express her views by just quoting her letter, which I think is rather compelling.

I do not have a lot of time, so I will quickly talk about libraries.

Here is the information that I received: 23 of the 49 librarians at Library and Archives Canada, or 46%, will be laid off. We are no longer talking about 10%. Almost half of the librarians will be laid off. That will have a huge impact on the accessibility of documents and research at Library and Archives Canada, since archivists are also being cut.

A program that was key for most small libraries across the country is also being eliminated. In particular, I would like to mention the University of Ottawa's Centre for Research on French Canadian Culture, which has relied on and been actively using this program since 1989. This program benefits not only the research centre, but also francophone communities across the country. The issues that it deals with are important to the country and to the French linguistic minority.

We were told that this community would not be affected by the budget, but we are already seeing an example that shows that such is not the case.

The last point, which is of the greatest concern, has to do with community access centres. They were created in 2000 to make sure that there was not a growing gap in the population. Only 81% of people are connected to the Internet in metropolitan areas. As a result, 19% of people in cities are not connected to the Internet. Outside those areas, the percentage is 71%. In Ottawa, 19% of people are not connected to the Internet. It is important to understand that people making less than $30,000 a year are the least likely to be connected to the Internet. In fact, 54% of people who have an income of less than $30,000 are not connected to the Internet compared to 97% of people who have an income of $87,000 and over.

So who is being penalized? Once again, it is the poor. For $70,000, 16 centres were operating in Ottawa with 17 volunteers. Only one coordinator and five students were working there. The 17 volunteers were putting in over 500 or 600 hours. A total of 52,000 people are using the service every year. For $70,000, the government is going to deprive 52,000 people of Internet access, when it has been demonstrated that the poorest members of society are the ones who are not connected to the Internet. That is the common thread in this budget.

When it comes to old age security, it is the poorest who will be penalized. When it comes to Internet access, it is the poorest who will be penalized. When it comes to foreign aid, it is the poorest who will be penalized. This budget truly makes me very sad.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you misread Motion No. 333. It reads “excluding certain fisheries”, and you said “including certain fisheries”.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to follow in French, but the interpreters are having a hard time keeping up with you.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 13th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, could you confirm whether you forgot to read item (c) of Motion No. 116?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 13th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, could you please read the number of the motion when you start to read it, so that we can keep track of where we are?