Pat Martin

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, the last point I will make on the sponsorship scandal is to comment, for the record, that I do not mind spending $40 million a year or even more if it means promoting the Confederation of Canada across the country to remind Canadians what a great and fragile nation we are dealing with today.

What I do object to is a great deal of that money is being spent in one province, the province of Quebec, on the unity issue. Coming from western Canada, especially rural western Canada, there is barely any visibility or one would never know there is a strong central government in Canada. With all the privatization, cutbacks and closing of public institutions, there is not even a federal building in a small town in rural Manitoba. However at the post office in the 7-Eleven, a whole generation of kids are growing up thinking the post office is 7-Eleven. They do not give the Canadian government credit for those fixtures. The only presence of the federal government might be rented space in a strip mall.

I do not think we should throw out the baby out with the bathwater and cancel the federal government sponsorship programs. If the minister is going to continue with the $40 million or more per year, would he commit to each province getting an equal amount of this $40 million, at least by ratio and proportion? Will he look retroactively at some makeup pay for some of those provinces like mine and probably other provinces in Atlantic Canada that were ignored and bypassed by these programs? Will he make the commitment that if spending continues, it will be done on a fair shared basis across the country?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the openness of the minister's remarks.

The public accounts committee is dealing with the Groupaction sponsorship scandal, if we can call it that. As of today we finally agreed on a partial list of witnesses. Two of those witnesses are two members of the staff that the minister has brought here today, the deputy minister and the executive director of communications.

When being briefed by the Law Clerk of the House of Commons, one thing that came up was that sitting public sector employees may not feel comfortable being forthright in answering all questions completely openly and honestly. In fact they may in fact have a legal right in common law to not divulge everything due to the duty of loyalty to the employer.

Given that the standing committee has some power to oblige people to respond, would the minister direct those civil servant witnesses who are still employed by government, because some of our witness are in fact no longer in the civil service, to answer forthright, openly and divulge everything they know about the delivery of the Groupaction scandal when those questions come before the public accounts committee?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, like my colleagues from the other parties, I would like to begin by welcoming the new minister to his new challenging task. We all have a great deal of hope and optimism that some of the many problems we have been dealing with will finally be dealt with properly.

I would like to compliment the minister for what I see as a very good first week in three different senses. First, for having frozen all payments on the sponsorship contracts, at least until a proper investigation can take place. That was the right thing to do and I believe the hon. minister did it within 48 hours.

Second, I approve that more things are being referred to the RCMP as they come forward, to expand the things that we are putting in front of the RCMP to look for criminal actions.

The third and final thing that I will praise the minister for, and then we will revert to customary estimates debate, is he volunteered to consider repatriating this work within the public sector. I am very glad that it came from the minister.

By turning a comment into a question, I would ask the minister to consider this first. There are more things here than just the cost factor and the cost benefits. There are more and better reasons perhaps for bringing this work back into the public sector than just the cost savings. I would argue that even if it costs more to deliver it through the public sector, we could do away with what I call the terrible graft corruption.

The evidence that the auditor general has unearthed and the body of evidence the RCMP is dealing with now would indicate that this set of contractors have soiled their own nests to such a degree that the government should not trust the communications sector with this important work.

What would the minister need to hear in terms of arguments to convince him that the right thing would be to take that work away from the private sector and bring it back into the public sector and under the scrutiny of the public accounts committee and the oversight of parliament?

[Financial Information Strategy, June 3rd, 2002]

Obfuscation is the word, with the assistance of the member for Palliser.

It is worrisome to Canadians. There is a renewed cry across the land for a better accounting system, one that is more understandable and more up to date and modern, yet 13 years after the subject was first introduced we still have to put forward private members' bills to encourage the government to introduce these measures.

Our reading of this issue, and I think I speak on behalf of most Canadians, is that even though the government's financial statements are now being prepared under accrual accounting practices, government estimates are not being prepared in the same manner. There is a contradiction here. There is a yardstick by which spending practices and perhaps spending outcomes are estimated and these differ from the yardstick used to measure the spending that took place. Surely this is contradictory. Not being a CA, I think that is a pretty simple way of rendering it down to an understandable and capsulized sort of statement.

There are two different yardsticks and all the bill seeks to do is coerce the government into implementing a strategy, which it agrees is the right thing to do, but to do it with some haste, energy and enthusiasm. Frankly, I think that the ruling party and the government actually could look pretty good in the public's eyes were they to do this.

Under the previous regime, prior to introducing the idea of the financial information strategy, the purchase of capital assets was deemed to be an expenditure in the fiscal year in which they were acquired. That is pretty basic and we can follow that, but under the new rules the asset is depreciated over its useful life. Let us say that the capital asset has a useful life of 10 years. In the year the asset is acquired, only one-tenth of the total value can be recognized as a government cost for that year.

As members can see, one cannot be budgeting one way and reporting actual expenses another way. That is why I think the Standing Committee on Public Accounts would welcome this motion, because it is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that has been pushing for a modernized, revised way of doing our accounting practices.

I would point out that were that to happen we would be falling in line with the way the whole private sector works. Why should the government be doing its books in a way that is different from that of the private sector business community? Businesses, through pressure from their shareholders, have implemented a more understandable and common sense approach to their accounting practices. Why then should the government cling to what is viewed as an outdated practice? It is an incomplete way of viewing our national assets if we do not realize the whole depreciation factor.

This is why this is an important issue. I think it speaks to a larger issue of some ulterior motive, that is, that the government does not really want to complete the implementation of these practices because under the current regime it is easier to be secretive and less than forthright, even though on paper, if one can plow through reams of paper currently produced in the public accounting system, it is not as understandable as it could be. Again I raise the point that it is an issue of natural justice. People deserve to know. As well, it is one of the commonly made points in the literacy community that we are all trying to simplify our language so that it is more comprehensible.

I raised one of the issues that is drawing the scrutiny of the public to public spending in a way that it never has in recent memory: the issue of the technology partnership loans. Were this new accounting practice put in place fully, and if we had the new government operations and estimates standing committee in place, the merit of those planned expenditures would be tested against a whole different yardstick. In other words, much as most provincial governments do, any kind of major program spending would have to meet the tests under this new set of accrual accounting practices. We would want to know the predictable outcomes, or at least the goals and objectives, and by what yardstick those goals and objectives shall be measured as to whether they are met or not.

Under such a system or regime of accounting, I do not believe that the technology partnership loans would ever have gotten off the ground. This was program spending that was introduced, we argue, on a political whim more than on any kind of an economic rationale, to give money to corporations that do not need it in exchange for large contributions to the ruling party.

I am not overstating things when I suggest that, because why else would the government give $33 million to IBM to develop a technology research program? That is not a struggling, upstart young company and neither are Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney, Spar Aerospace or SNC-Lavalin. These companies did not need that investment, yet they dutifully kicked back large amounts of money to the Liberal Party to thank it for that investment.

If we had put in place the new government operations and estimates standing committee, whereby we could have reviewed the spending before it happened under a new accounting regime that measured outcomes in the same way we measure expenditures after the fact, the whistle would have been blown earlier on and we could have saved a lot of grief.

It is with regret that I note we have only 10 minutes to speak to this important subject. If the hon. member moves that the motion should be deemed votable, he would certainly have the support of the NDP caucus.

[Financial Information Strategy, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the member for Cariboo--Chilcotin for bringing forward this very timely and very topical subject for debate in the House of Commons today.

I share his point of view in that I also hope that by the end of today the motion will be deemed votable. The hon. member has brought an issue to us that many Canadians care about very much, especially in light of recent information in regard to public spending, scandals to do with technology partnership loans, scandals to do with sponsorship contracts involving Groupaction, and information regarding the auditor general's comments on the way this government uses foundations to squirrel away money and keep it away from public scrutiny. The very issues of greater accountability, greater transparency and a more understandable method of accounting practices are things many Canadians are very much interested in. It is not too much of a leap to say it is an issue of natural justice that Canadians be able to understand the accounting methods that the government uses in managing billions and billions of dollars on our behalf on a daily basis.

The financial information strategy is simply one step in a comprehensive package that hopefully will lead us toward an era of greater understanding regarding the accounting and the spending practices of the government. As I understand it, the major issue of the financial information strategy has been generated from a comment in the auditor general's report that it has taken far too much time to implement what everyone here agrees is a better methodology for accounting practices.

One of the issues is that this was first introduced 13 years ago in 1989. It surfaced again in 1995 with an introduction date of April 2001. That date has passed. The public accounts committee, on which I sit as a member on behalf of our party, recommended that April 2003 perhaps would be a more realistic goal for the introduction of the whole financial information strategy. The auditor general has commented once again that to date only 60 of 95 government departments are operating under this new and better accounting methodology.

This almost would indicate that the government is dragging its feet in the implementation of the financial information strategy. One would wonder what the reason would be for delaying, stalling and putting roadblocks in the way of the introduction of such a common sense accounting practice. One can only think that there is some benefit for the ruling party to have methods of estimates and accounting after spending takes place that do not jive, that somehow contradict each other and make it easier to secret away facts and details. It is a strategy of--

[Whistleblowing, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if we are ever to get to the bottom of these sponsorship scandals, we need public servants to feel comfortable coming forward with whatever information they have. They are not likely to do that with the Prime Minister threatening them from the front page of the newspaper. Anyone with information, as of today, has gone to ground.

The Liberals have promised whistleblowing legislation since 1993, yet they have blocked six private members' bills to that effect and have now put a weak substitute in place. Even the integrity officer is worried that he does not have the teeth to really protect whistleblowers.

Will they grant a general amnesty to any public servant--

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate on the main motion of Bill C-55. I recently had an opportunity to speak to the amendment. I also have had the opportunity now to listen to a number of other speakers and very thoughtful presentations as we work our way through this very complex bill.

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I would like to address the remarks of the previous speaker from the Liberal Party, the member for Bonavista--Trinity--Conception, who found fault with the NDP's analysis of Bill C-55. He felt that perhaps we were being too harsh and that we were not looking hard enough to find the merits and benefits of the bill.

I would like to point out that we have made a very detailed, in-depth analysis of the bill and we still find it flawed, we still find it worrisome and we still find it necessary to caution the Canadian public that some of the very values by which we identify ourselves as Canadians will be jeopardized by the bill.

I do not think my colleague from the NDP caucus who spoke previously overstated things at all in her speech. Perhaps the hon. member from Bonavista should have paid closer attention to some of the concerns we have raised. We do not raise them just to be obstinate. We raise them as a way of cautioning the Canadian people that this massive power grab of an omnibus bill raises serious concerns and could jeopardize the very way we view ourselves as Canadians, because some of those basic freedoms and principles that we enjoy and are committed to are the very things of which we are most proud.

When I raise specifics, I hope the hon. member listens. He said that the NDP had nothing positive at all to say about Bill C-55. I would like to put it on the record that there are points in Bill C-55 that we find important. In fact I would point out that Bill C-42, which was so hastily thrown together after the tragic events of 9/11, had to be done away with and put out of its misery. Some of the changes in Bill C-55 are improvements over Bill C-42, such as the change to the Aeronautics Act whereby the transport minister's regulation making powers concerning aviation safety will be better defined under Bill C-55 than they were under Bill C-42.

There are specific areas, to which I am happy to point, where we find Bill C-55 better than the previous bill. I would start by saying though that Bill C-42 was thrown together hastily and when it was pulled, we waited for four or five months for Bill C-55 to come forward. Now we are being told by the government that we must get Bill C-55 through immediately and hastily because it is an urgent issue. Where was the urgency when Bill C-42 languished for five months in bureaucratic limbo prior to us seeing the introduction of Bill C-55?

I do not accept the argument that the same sense of urgency exists as may have existed the day after 9/11. Certainly we are all interested in national security. A lot of Canadians feel that the government currently has a great deal of authority or ability to intervene, if it really thinks there is a clear and present danger. The War Measures Act for instance was always there as a tool, as an instrument for ministers to use.

One of the worrisome things that has been pointed out is a difference between Bill C-55 and the War Measures Act. Under the War Measures Act, the government had to come back to parliament within 48 hours. Under Bill C-55, a minister could exercise this expanded authority, not even report to cabinet for 15 days and not have it dealt with in parliament for 45 days. That is a broad and sweeping power. A lot could happen in 45 days and we would not have a chance to give it parliamentary oversight or scrutiny for 45 days. That alone should be cause and concern enough to the Canadian people that they should be asking us to put the brakes on the bill, let it sit over the summer and rethink if we really want to trade this amount of personal freedom for that amount of national safety.

This is one thing of which I am very critical. I guess to summarize the trend or theme of the bill, it very much expands ministerial authority. It very much diminishes parliamentary oversight. That is a very worrisome theme. That is actually a motif that I have noticed in virtually every piece of legislation introduced by the Liberals in the years that I have been here. There has been a tendency to expand ministerial authority and to diminish the ability of parliament to have true parliamentary oversight.

It is a slippery slope. It is a very tempting and seductive thing I suppose for the ruling party. I would remind the ruling party that it will not always be the ruling party. As it strips away parliament's abilities and powers in the way the government was intended it to be, the Liberals will find themselves on the opposition benches wondering why they do not have any opportunity to intervene, to make legislation and to act as a true parliament. The government will have been the architects of dismantling and downsizing the authority of parliament.

That is a very worrisome trend that is very evident in Bill C-55, enhancing the discretionary authority of ministers and diminishing our ability to exercise parliamentary oversight, especially as it pertains to such sensitive issues of personal freedom.

Another thing is, when we talk about an omnibus bill, most people are tempted to call it a Trojan horse. To achieve what most Canadians would support, which is an enhanced sense of national security, we believe that the bill has been loaded up as an absolute catch-all for other things that are incidental. They were perhaps part of a plan of the Liberal Party to have them introduced. The government is using this as the vehicle, the Trojan horse, for all kinds of other measures.

There are 15 different acts that will be amended by Bill C-55. These 15 different acts are under the jurisdiction of nine different standing committees. Yet the bill will only go to one standing committee, the transport committee.

I should point out for the record some of the acts that will be amended by the bill; the Aeronautics Act, the biological and toxin weapons convention implementation act, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Criminal Code of Canada, the Explosives Act, the National Energy Board Act, the National Defence Act, the Hazardous Products Act and many more will be affected by Bill C-55. However the people in our caucus who are experts in these fields and sit on the appropriate committees will not have the chance to view this document or to move amendments at committee stage or to even scrutinize it at committee stage. They do not sit on the transport committee.

Our health expert, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, sits on the health committee. If this bill will have an impact on the health act, why is it not before the health committee so it can receive the all party scrutiny that we do at committee?

I am trying to itemize the number of legitimate reasons why the NDP caucus cannot support Bill C-55. This is why we are trying to alert the Canadian public that it needs far greater attention and scrutiny.

I am not only asking for more time to debate and less of a rush so that we can hear more brilliant speeches in the House of Commons. I am asking for more time so that we can engage Canadians, so that we consult Canadians, so that we can ask Canadians are they willing to trade these personal freedoms for these issues of national security? How much are Canadians willing to trade? How far as they willing to go?

Those are the questions Canadians deserve to be asked and we need to undertake a process by which we can get input and feedback.

We know it takes time for an issue to percolate from the House of Commons through the general public consciousness. I am sure Canadians are not aware that we are dealing with such a broad and sweeping piece of legislation right now. By the time this gets rammed through it will be too late.

By the time this session ends in a couple of days or a couple of weeks, Canadians still will not have been aware that we are undertaking changes to their personal freedoms that will change the way they live in this country and the way they view this country.

The one example people are fond of is the expanded enhanced ability to declare a military security zone. I think it is not being paranoid to assume this may be tied into the upcoming G-8 demonstrations scheduled for Kananaskis.

We saw how the government dealt with the gatherings and crowd control at APEC. We saw it again in Quebec City, ducking tear gas cannisters as we did. If the bill goes through, the government will have far broader, more enhanced sweeping powers and authorities in dealing with even peaceful demonstrators. That is another good reason why Canadians are concerned and why the NDP caucus has been critical of Bill C-55, just as we were of Bill C-36 and Bill C-42.

Some of the changes between Bill C-42 and Bill C-55 warrant mention. One of the changes to the military--

[Whistleblowing, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to get to the bottom of these sponsorship scandals, we need public servants to feel comfortable coming forward with whatever information they have. However they are not going to speak out if they are worried about being disciplined, fired or even charged for the role they may have played.

Canada does not have any whistleblowing legislation. As an interim measure until we do, will the government agree to a general amnesty for any public servant who brings forward information relevant to investigation of these sponsorship contracts?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the final report on the Walkerton tragedy tells us that there are 83 potential Walkertons across Canada as we speak. I refer to the 83 first nations communities that are under boil water notices and have no access to clean, potable water. This situation would never be tolerated if these were white communities.

Instead of spending millions of dollars to promote the first nations governance initiative that nobody wants, let us talk about the basic needs of thousands of first nations families.

Will the minister of Indian affairs commit today that water quality in these communities will be the number one priority of his department?

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, unless I missed something, he is not the new Minister of National Defence.

We already know that part of Groupaction's work for DND was to design and test market a disastrous new logo for the military. It was deemed unusable because first of all, it eliminated the word “Canadian” and second, it made the word “forces” read like “farces”. The farce of course is the government's incestuous relationship with Quebec communications companies.

This time I want the Minister of National Defence to tell us how much he spent for this unusable logo. How much more DND spending has already been preapproved by four Groupaction contracts? Will the minister agree then--