Paul Dewar

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with some sadness, quite frankly, that we have to debate this issue, because of the scope of the issue and the idea, as we heard from my friend on the other side, that we are looking at a deal that has not been signed or completed. The deal has not been done, although my understanding is that the deal will be done, possibly as of tomorrow, so it is important that we talk about this issue and try to shine some light on the facts.

I am going to stick to the facts as I know them and as they have been presented. Sadly, this issue has not been dealt with through transparency but through the opaqueness of the brown envelope I received, which I used to bring this issue to Parliament and to Canadians. That is not the way it should be done.

In fact, I have just come from the committee dealing with Bill C-2, the accountability act. One thing we have proposed for Bill C-2 is to deal with the disclosure of information on contracts to make sure that Canadians receive value for the money they are spending and investing. We want to hear more than “trust us, just wait, the deal isn't signed yet”. We want to hear more than “when the deal is signed you'll all be happy with it”.

Canadians want the people they elected to represent them to be able to hold the government to account. Clearly this is not going happen when we are told time and time again when this subject is raised in the House, and I did raise it, that we should trust the government, that the deal has not been signed, and that when it is we will be happy with it. I am sorry, but I am from Missouri and I want to see the facts.

We have heard that the government is in talks or having discussions. I trust the member when he says the deal has not been signed, so we are in discussions, and what are the facts as we know them?

One fact is that JDS Uniphase, which was hit severely by the downturn in the high tech sector in the local Ottawa economy, had surplus land. JDS Uniphase had its surplus campus on Merivale Road. The company went to market to sell its property.

Initially, JDS Uniphase spoke with the former government and offered the property to the Department of National Defence. We believe the price tag was somewhere around $30 million. What we then found out was that the Department of National Defence said at the time that it was interested. There were some talks. In the end, the department turned down JDS.

What followed was that Minto Developments bought the land for $30 million, following which Minto entered into talks with the former Liberal government to sell the building to the government for what we now know turned out to be over $600 million over 25 years with a lease to buy. I will come back to that in a minute and will reference what the Auditor General thinks about those kinds of deals.

Here we are now with a new government that is continuing the talks and again says “just trust us”, that the government will tell us it is a good deal.

However, my constituents and the 4,500 people on the waiting list for affordable housing, for instance, would love to see just a couple of million dollars invested in affordable housing. The NDP has been asking for affordable housing. My party did make some changes to the budget last spring to make sure that there would be investments in affordable housing in our communities, so that people could see money invested in their own communities. My colleague from northern Ontario spoke about the need for investments there.

Clearly the fact that we have over $600 million to be spent over 25 years on a lease to buy needs a lot of examination and we need answers to a lot of questions that we have put forward.

Those are the facts. That is the trajectory.

I would have to add, with respect, that the previous government and the present government have something in common when it comes to this deal. Not only are they both part and parcel on this deal, but they also managed to receive over $70,000 from Minto Developments. Did they break any rules? No. Is it against the law? No, but it gives one pause for cause.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will read the contents of the preamble of this petition I am presenting on behalf of my constituents: whereas Canada has been a land of hope for newcomers, particularly refugees, and Canadians are proud of our multicultural society, Canada has an international reputation of commitment to protecting human rights as a signatory to numerous international treaties on refugees and human rights, including the convention relating to the status of refugees, the convention against torture, the convention on the rights of the child and the international covenant on civil and political rights.

Millions of people around the globe are refugees fleeing war, persecution, torture and other forms of violence, the vast majority of whom are hosted by poorer nations. Canada accepts just a tiny percentage of the world's refugees, and refugees are less than one-tenth of our total immigration. The petitioners call upon Parliament to do the following: to “welcome the stranger in need” and significantly increase the number of refugees that Canada accepts annually; to lift barriers that prevent refugees from reaching Canada; to provide international leadership to address the causes that force people from their homes and prevent them from returning; to reform Canada's refugee and immigration program to ensure full access to due process; to speed the immigration process for reuniting refugees and their families; and finally, to take further measures to help newcomers integrate into Canadian society.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a couple of points. As a member who has sat on the committee looking at Bill C-2, I think it is important to underline a couple of the reasons why I would like to support the motion and also why all members should support it.

It really comes down to the fact that we in the NDP have made a commitment to make sure that the intention and the substance of Bill C-2 are going to see the light of day, quite frankly. My colleague for Winnipeg Centre put it straightforwardly. This is the kind of thing that Canadians have asked for. This is the kind of thing that Canadians demand.

We in the NDP believe there is more that can be done. We are going forward in committee with amendments to make sure that is done. As for anything that is not done with the bill, we will make sure that we do more than oppose; we will make sure to propose solutions to those deficiencies. In fact, there are many things we have already pointed out in the area of being responsible and accountable to the public at large. We see those in areas of democratic reform.

I gladly and wholeheartedly support the motion. I encourage all my colleagues to do so. It is the right thing to do. It is what Canadians expect from us.

[Petitions, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of Canadians.

The petitioners say that the federal government is allowing Canada Post to close post offices in spite of a moratorium on closures in rural areas and small towns. They also say that public post offices connect communities throughout this vast land, helping us to overcome differences and distances.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to instruct Canada Post to maintain, expand and improve its networks of public post offices.

[Public Works and Government Services, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted about the interest from the government. It continues to tell us there is no deal. However, there seems to be enough of a deal that lobbyists are involved and enough of a deal that journalists can report on details leaking from the back rooms.

Will the Prime Minister agree to live up to his lofty rhetoric on transparency and table before the House all documents pertaining to this increasingly shady deal?

[Public Works and Government Services, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to tell the House that--

[Public Works and Government Services, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, just like the Liberals, the Conservatives are putting their friends ahead of working families. They promised to be different from Liberals and end the backroom deals brokered by lobbyists who have close ties to government.

This morning we learned that the Minister of Public Works has been lobbied by the former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney to grease the wheels for the bad office deal with Minto Developments. Canadians are already outraged by a deal that will cost them 20 times more than it should.

Will the minister explain how having lobbyists pushing for bad deals with phantom ministers is being accountable to Canadian taxpayers?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it was on May 5 that I asked the Treasury Board president if he was prepared to give his assurances that the government will drop all court cases against past whistleblowers and compensate those who are proven to be correct.

I would like to ask for a timeframe that Ms. Gualtieri can expect so she can get her life back. This is not so much to ask from someone who simply acted ethically and did the right thing in disclosing the waste of millions of dollars at taxpayers' expense.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of debating the federal accountability act, part of which deals with measures to protect whistleblowers.

Joanna Gualtieri is one of those public servants who, through her disclosure of gross mismanagement of funds, has saved taxpayers millions of dollars, yet she continues to be harassed through the courts, causing her serious financial hardship and emotional distress.

I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board again to give his assurance that the government's court action against Joanna will be dropped immediately.

[Workplace Health and Safety, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the health of most citizens in this country is protected by health and safety rights in the workplace. Sadly, this is not the case for those who work right here on Parliament Hill.

Instead, their basic rights are denied and they are essentially treated as second class citizens. Since there are no health and safety laws, workers cannot actively participate in the prevention of workplace accidents. No law means that workers cannot exercise their right to refuse dangerous work.

Over 20 years ago the government finally legislated a labour law known as the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act to protect its own employees. However, no government since has been willing to enact the law.

It is time to protect workers here who work to serve Parliament. They deserve the same protections that are afforded workers in all other sectors.