Mauril Bélanger

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

I want to say straight off that I do not agree with Bill C-2, which is being debated at third reading tonight, and the fate of which, if I understand correctly, has already been decided. When time is up, it will be declared passed on division. I therefore want to put my opposition to this bill on the record.

There are too many complications and too many provisions that have not gelled sufficiently and have not been given enough thought. Too many problems may arise out of this bill, if it were somehow to be passed in the other chamber as it now stands.

Let us hope that those in the other chamber will have the time they need, and the will, which they certainly have, to fine-tune the bill, to fix it and improve it, and that the government will allow them the time they need to do that.

I will mention some of the reasons why I am opposed to this bill. I may have a chance, in the 10 minutes I am allotted, to explain some of them in more detail.

First, there is the question of post-employment restrictions. I believe that the period specified, five years, is unreasonably long. That is one of the reasons I do not support this bill.

I know that there was a brief discussion tonight about how returning officers will be selected. I had an opportunity to appear before the standing committee, I talked about this, and I will come back to it.

There is also the question of the contribution limit that Canadians will now be subject to.

There is the question of the Access to Information Act, which has not been resolved at all. On the contrary, we seem to be going off in the opposite direction from where we should be going.

There is the entire question, which was referred to tonight, of the effect of this bill on the public service and the inflexibility that will result.

There is also the entire question of the omnibus nature of the bill. This often means that some of our colleagues try to take advantage of the situation and introduce amendments to other bills. There have been at least two examples in this case. One well-intentioned colleague—I am not questioning his intentions—wanted to change the structure of the National Capital Commission, without any discussion on that subject having taken place.

Another colleague also wanted to introduce the idea of switching parties into the bill, for a member to be able to cross the floor.

I would have been against this bill, if the virtually totalitarian big brotherism of the provision that public servants who inform on other public servants would be paid $1,000 had not been deleted. In that case, the committee had the wisdom to delete that clause of this omnibus bill before us.

There is also the entire question of the general climate of the debate on this bill. This has been a cause of extreme concern for me, and this is where I will begin.

It is very easy to use a broad brush when you want to tar as widely as possible on the whole question of corruption. The government says that this is the main reason for this bill. Forgive me if I doubt that rationale. Forgive me for thinking that in some cases, there are partisan motives behind the government’s decision to concoct this bill, which is really a crazy quilt, a patchwork of pieces that clash with each other, provisions that will complicate everyone’s life without necessarily achieving the intended objectives.

The Bloc Québécois said that this bill would do nothing to prevent future scandal. I hope the Bloc is wrong, but I am not sure it is. I hope it is wrong. If another scandal were to surface during the tenure of my colleagues opposite, for whom I have great respect, the temptation to use that same broad brush would be very strong. Then all of Parliament would be sullied.

When they were in opposition, I often asked my colleagues across the way—who are now in government—to be careful with their comments and circumspect in their accusations and their tendency to wantonly and unfairly cast aspersions on all and sundry.

I hope that the tables have not turned.

As I said, it would probably be very tempting for members on this side of the House to do the same thing. Of course, they are the ones who would suffer, along with the rest of Parliament. We must therefore take great care not to be motivated solely by partisanship when discussing public policy. We must consider the common good and good governance.

This is why I will vote, or rather, would have voted against the bill, because we know the vote has essentially been carried on division. I guess that makes me a dissident.

The five years that is being required is far too long. If the government insists that certain persons will not be able to work in their field for five years, we should perhaps consider the costs this will incur. It could well be that we are obliged to issue severance pay for two years, two and a half years or three years. That has not been provided for.

Take the case of Elizabeth Roscoe. I do not know her. I met her only once or twice at society parties. This lady is being denied the chance to work for five years in her field, when she served the Prime Minister for two weeks during a transition period. It is unacceptable that the rules should have been changed retroactively. A Parliament should never legislate retroactively, and in this case we seem to be doing that. I am opposed to it.

It is the same thing for returning officers. I know that my colleagues are listening to me on the other side and on this side. When I appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I said that the way that returning officers were chosen had to be improved. But I also said that we had to be very prudent about what was proposed. If we give an authority the ability to choose certain people and to dismiss them from their service, we will likely be asking ourselves questions about the governance model, that is, whether it is the right one.

This is what the bill seems to be proposing. So I must necessarily stand in opposition to it. I am hesitant. I have doubts about the wisdom of this. Maybe I am wrong. I hope I am, but Parliament will have to be very vigilant about this situation.

The issue of contribution limits is probably another shocker. There is an incongruity here in the discourse of the party opposite. On the one hand, when the Prime Minister was with the National Citizens Coalition, he fought in court. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm the right of individuals to contribute as much as they wanted. If this bill were adopted, I would be subject to a limit of $1,000. However, any company or individual could contribute, in the riding I have the honour to represent, over $3,000, or $150,000 at the national level. In fact, third parties are not subject to the same limits. I believe that this is not only unfair, but probably unconstitutional. I would like this measure to be confirmed and tested before the courts, because in my opinion, what we have before us at the moment is pure partisanship, a purely partisan attempt unfortunately supported by the New Democrats, as regards its coming into force as soon as the bill receives royal assent.

Those are two of the reasons. There is also the whole issue of access to information. The Information Commissioner issued a special report on this matter. He wondered how it was that the government, which had said it would be going in the opposite direction, was tabling a dozen measures that made access to information more difficult.

Given this whole list of measures, I find myself obliged to oppose this bill. I repeat that I sincerely hope that the other chamber takes the necessary time and has the necessary will to correct these shortcomings. I also hope that when this bill comes back to us, we have an opportunity to do likewise in this House.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association on the bilateral visit to Maputo, Mozambique, from March 21 to 23, 2006, and to Cape Town, South Africa, on March 24, 2006.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will not make reference to the comments about the Minister of International Trade or the Minister of Public Works. I want to concentrate on the process and the substance at hand here.

The government has received a proposal. That is legitimate. Whether the government decides to act on it is the question. I am sure the member for Abbotsford, as reasonable as he is, might even agree with me that whenever the government acquires a million square feet of space, it should do so through a public tender call process.

It may still acquire it after the public tender call process because it may be the better deal. I do not know that. I do not have the details of the deal, but in terms of the transparency aspirations of the government, which the Conservatives have touted as their number one priority, it stands to reason that the government should acquire that huge amount of space as a result of a public tender call process and not an unsolicited proposal.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, to say that I take this stand because I am in opposition is absolutely and totally inaccurate.

I said to the member and I said in this House, whenever I met with Mr. Greenberg of Minto on this file, when I was in government, the conditions that I have just enumerated of a public tender process were required in order for Public Works to reach the 75-25 objective. This was to ensure that we did not exacerbate the current east-west balance but redressed it, and it would also accompany the acquisition. That is what I said then and that is what I say now, so for the member to say that I have changed my tune because I am in opposition now is totally inaccurate.

Second, the acquisition of the old city hall of Ottawa was something that the government wanted. It wanted it because it happens to be on Sussex Drive which is next to Foreign Affairs. Buying a public property from a government to a government is a totally different process, as the hon. member will know. When the Government of Canada disposes of property, it first goes to other departments, then to provinces and then to municipalities, and the reverse process occurs out of courtesy and respect from other governments.

He is mixing apples and oranges here.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we could also ask the government House leader to respond, as he has been responding for many others today.

I take great pleasure in participating in this debate. I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Mississauga—Erindale.

There are three or four items of importance to keep in mind in this matter. I want to briefly touch on each.

There has been reference to the 75-25 split of the federal public service in the national capital region.

I always supported this fair distribution of employees of the public service of Canada in the national capital region, between the Ontario side and the Quebec side of the national capital.

I have always worked toward this objective and I have always supported initiatives on this. Until very recently, we were getting close to the 75/25 objective, but for some time, it seems that we are moving away from it.

My first objection to the unsolicited proposal of Minto Development for the Government of Canada to acquire JDS Uniphase is due to the impact that this acquisition might have on achieving the 75/25 distribution objective.

We are talking about one million square feet, about 100,000 square metres on the Ontario side. This is a huge deal. It would cause a real setback in achieving this 75/25 objective. Before these additional 100,000 square metres are occupied and the space that is left vacant is filled, we will have a major setback in achieving this objective.

My first objection is that this acquisition would move us away from the objective and the Department of Public Works and Government Services never put forward a plan to counter this impact.

My second concern stems from the fact that the Canadian government, as the largest employer in the National Capital Region, has an obligation to be a good employer. It is also obligated to be aware of the impact of its decisions on the local economy and population.

Already, there is a disparity between the number of jobs in the east end—of the City of Ottawa—and in the west end. For example, according to the person-year data, in terms of employment on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region, there is a marked disparity between east and west, in favour of the west end, where there are far more jobs.

Acquiring a million square feet in the west end of Ottawa will only exacerbate an existing problem. The Canadian government, as a good employer, as a so-called good citizen, must carefully consider the repercussions of its decisions on the local economy and population.

Speaking of local infrastructure, it must be recognized that this disparity, putting the east end at a disadvantage, is very clear. If the Canadian government, for whatever reason, were to acquire a million square feet in the west end, it would have to come up with a plan to correct that disparity, just as we need to see a plan to correct the 75/25 disparity for the Ontario and Quebec sides of the National Capital Region.

These are two major concerns, and I would like to add a third. The government is dealing with an unsolicited proposal.

Whenever the government acquires a huge amount of space such as this one, a million square feet, 100,000 square metres, it is not a small amount of space and it has an impact on the local economy. To acquire that on an unsolicited proposal is a mistake. I believe the government has a duty to respect its own commitment of transparency and go through a public tender process.

The arguments offered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works that the government could lose this do not hold water. If it comes back that the best deal is indeed the one that Minto is putting forward on an unsolicited basis currently, then so be it. I will still say, as I have in the past consistently, and Mr. Greenberg of Minto Developments, whom I have met on this on occasion, will confirm that I have always said that it should not be an unsolicited proposal. If the Government of Canada acquires that space, it should be as a result of a public call for proposals. I know there are others in the area, both in Quebec and Ontario, who would like to bid on this. There are some in the east in Orléans, so I imagine that the member for Ottawa—Orléans would be quite interested in knowing that the government would not want to proceed with a proposal call. I believe there may even be some from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell who might have some land holdings and would be interested in bidding. I know there are some from Gatineau, Aylmer and Hull sectors who might be interested.

There would be a great advantage for the government to know what proposals are out there and let the developers sharpen their pencils and put the best deal forward. If Minto still provides the best deal in response to the needs of the government, then proceed with the proviso that public works has a duty at the same time to come up with a plan that will make sure that the long-standing objective of a 75-25 split of federal public service employees in the national capital region, 75% on the Ontario side and 25% on the Quebec side, is met. Also as a good employer, as a model citizen in this community, it should address the current imbalance between the east and the west. These are the conditions that I have always said should be met in dealing with this kind of proposal from Minto.

I also want to take a minute to comment on what the member for Gatineau said about my colleague from Hull—Aylmer. I was elected to this place before the member for Hull—Aylmer and immediately got to work with him in his capacity as executive assistant to the regional minister. I can assure the House that, even in those days, he made sure that issues pertaining to the Outaouais region were looked after. When he was elected member of Parliament for Hull—Aylmer, he joined the government caucus for the national capital region. We would meet every week. Ministers dealing with issues important to our region were invited to attend these meetings, so that we could express our views. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all the people of Hull—Aylmer that the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer did not miss a chance to make demands, as appropriate, for the riding and the people he represents. So, what our colleague from Gatineau said has to be taken with a grain of salt, because it does not hold up.

I also wanted to take this opportunity to stress that one wonders who would go there. I must admit that, as the member of Parliament for Ottawa—Vanier, the riding which is currently home to the RCMP headquarters, I am somewhat concerned. The commissioner of the RCMP may correct me publicly if I am wrong, but I was told that he, the commissioner of the RCMP, was the one pushing for this deal to be closed.

The deal is all but closed. A letter of intention has been sent. In fact, the parliamentary secretary said so himself. From the moment that a letter of intention is sent, the rest, including the Treasury Board process, is a mere formality. I may be wrong. Still, the government should take the will of this House into account and wait for a vote to be taken on this proposal. I support the motion to concur in the second report of the committee, requesting that, when making or planning to make acquisitions as major as this. the government go through an open tendering process.

I will conclude on this note. Should the government go ahead with this acquisition, it would be required to indicate how it plans to achieve the 75-25 split, and to mitigate the current east-west imbalance on the Ottawa side of the national capital region instead of making it worse.

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, just to complement the answer of my colleague from Davenport, it was only on Sunday when the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced the technical review of the CRTC and asked that it be completed by mid-December. There is no doubt that this will have an impact on whatever structure is created to look at the mandate of CBC Radio-Canada.

The debate here is mostly focused on the fact that the heritage committee unanimously has asked the minister to be consulted vis-à-vis the terms of reference of whatever structure or group is gathered and given the task to review the mandate of CBC Radio-Canada. That is the purpose.

There are some misgivings on our part vis-à-vis the intentions of the government. It did not support a motion two weeks ago to maintain CBC funding. There have been some comments referred to in the House and in the other place by members of the government. It is because of these misgivings that the committee asked for a chance to have input, on the terms of reference only, of whatever structure is created to look at the CBC mandate.

It is in that sense that those are two independent reviews, one believes, but that one will certainly have an impact on the other.

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask this question before, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage does also, in terms of asking the member why he does not understand yes either. I have that thrown at me and the critic for the Bloc Québécois has had that thrown at him. I expect it is coming, but we will try to prevent that from happening.

The committee has asked, and the motion that is before us is supportive of it, that the minister consult the committee vis-à-vis the terms of reference of a review of CBC Radio-Canada before that review is undertaken. I wanted to ask the member for Timmins—James Bay if he has heard, as I have not, the minister say categorically either in the House or in committee in response to questions or in any ministerial statements she may have made that indeed she would consult the committee on the terms of reference of a CBC Radio-Canada mandate review before the review is undertaken.

That question was put and we never got an answer. She said she would happily seek the advice of the committee but never in regard to the terms of reference and never before the mandate review was to start. She has not said that.

I was wondering if the member opposite would concur with me. He said that he does not trust the government. I must admit to some misgivings myself, especially concerning the parliamentary secretary's views of CBC and also in view of the vote that took place two weeks ago on a motion that called for maintenance of CBC funding, which the government voted against.

There are some misgivings. That is why I thought it appropriate that the House insist via concurrence in the report of the committee with what we are asking, which is fairly innocuous, that the committee be consulted by the minister on the terms of reference of a CBC mandate review. Has he heard the minister clearly state that she would consult the committee before the mandate review was initiated?

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the minister's parliamentary secretary had to say. I think I can use his words to illustrate the difference of approach vis-à-vis CBC Radio-Canada.

Some of us on this side of the House are not comfortable with where the government may wish to take the CBC. I say may because there have been some reports, such as the Lincoln, where the facts do not support the claim that the CBC is essential.

The member for Peterborough last week recommended that the CBC increase its ability to sell commercials. We have had the recommendation that CBC English television be commercialized. There is a contradictory direction, where one would see more commercial revenues and more commercialization of CBC television and others would like to see less. As I said, last week the public policy forum put out a report.

We all know that the crafting of the terms of reference of a review is extremely important. In the crafting of them direction can be given. That is why the committee has asked to be involved in the crafting of those terms of reference. We will not set them, and I understand that. We respect the government's prerogative to do things.

The government should respect our wish to be consulted in giving advice and recommendations as to the terms of reference. For instance, we want the terms of reference to ensure they include a funding formula. That is the key to the future of the CBC. We want to ensure they include the technology and how it can adapt to technology. We also want to ensure that the commercialization aspect is dealt with in the terms of reference.

These are the issues that are “qui sont sous-jacentes”, that underline this debate. It is the future direction of CBC. Whereas some on the government side may want to see it commercialized or have more commercial revenues, some on this side of the House want to see less of it. We want to see the terms of reference, not give a direction that is not wanted.

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there was a cut to the CBC Radio-Canada budget in 1995. When the Liberal government formed the government in 1993, remember that the Mulroney government had left the country with a $42 billion annual deficit. Our government felt that we could not continue accumulating debt at that rate. In the 1995 budget all the departments save one, and I believe that was Indian affairs, saw a cut in their budgets.

Within three years of that budget the country had eliminated its annual deficit and was on its way to financial stability. As soon as we achieved that, the budgeting for CBC Radio-Canada became a steady matter on a five year forecast. The government also created the television production fund in which it put money to enable CBC and other producers in this country to initiate and re-engage in production.

Yes, in 1995 the government of the day did what it had to do in setting the finances of the nation on a proper footing. It included a general belt tightening for everyone, including the CBC. Henceforth from the moment we achieved financial surpluses which we have had since then, CBC Radio-Canada funding has been stable and predictable.

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, for the member to insinuate that this is not in order is totally wrong. The agenda of the House calls for routine proceedings, in which there are motions. As a member of the House, I have every right to move the motion that I have moved. So that we do not provide erroneous impressions with the people who may be listening, I have every right to do what I am doing.

To suggest that I am wasting the time of the House by asking that the government respect the will of the House in terms of having a committee look at the terms of reference to review an institution that is very important to Canadians is a bit of a stretch. I am sure the member was not suggesting that reviewing the mandate of CBC Radio-Canada is a waste of time.

I said throughout my intervention that the minister did not confirm that she could or would consult the committee on the terms of reference of the review before the end of the session. It is also well-known that the government intends to move ahead. The question becomes: Will the House categorically state to the minister by adopting the report that its committee has proposed, which I gather was approved unanimously, that the government not proceed with a review of CBC Radio-Canada's mandate without first having gone to the heritage committee to get some feedback on the terms of reference of that review? That is all that is at stake here.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage has been a member of the heritage committee for a decade now and knows the committee has done excellent work. He was involved for the two years the committee spent reviewing broadcasting, including CBC Radio-Canada and its mandate. It only makes sense that the committee would ask to be consulted in terms of the ongoing nature of this file and the ongoing evolution of technology and broadcasting in Canada.

I am asking the House to confirm that its committee be consulted before we proceed. That is certainly not a waste of time.