Paul Dewar

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is right. There is a lot of concern in this town about the Conservative government. It is not only about its track record but about going forward.

The power grab we see in this budget is interfering not only with the collective agreements but with management. It seems as if the government does not trust the managers of crown corporations, let alone the people who deliver all the public services we rely on.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this could be done in a way that is responsible and responsive. The problem is that the government is just throwing it all together and throwing it in the budget.

In responding to the member's question, let me just state what Secretary of State Clinton did. She had a committee representing 16 departments and agencies that were consulted, and they worked on how they were going to change development in that country. In the U.K., they had a white paper process, which as we know, in the Westminster tradition, is a way in which we take a policy, go out and consult and actually lay it out. This government has done nothing, not even with its own employees.

I am deeply concerned that the Conservatives could take what could be a good idea and make it a bad rollout to start with and something I guess the rest of us would have to fix later.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member is having some fun thinking of ways to try to be crafty and find a wedge. The problem is that the member knows that the most recent tax we have had to deal with in the House is called the HST. Some called it the Prime Minister's name sales tax. I do not. This government brought that in. The only taxes we will talk about that have been raised have been from the government. He knows that they are raising taxes in this budget and that he is trying to find a wedge somehow.

What we have said, and we will stand by it, is that when people such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer want to have numbers to show how one might balance the budget, we would, as a government, provide those numbers, not hide from accountability, as he has.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, who are going to be holding the government's feet to the fire tonight on what the Conservatives call an economic action plan. It was supposed to be a budget; many people said after it was announced by the finance minister that they were still waiting for the budget.

I want to begin my comments by referring to some of the problems with the budget from 2012.

I will go back to November 2012, when there was this interesting interplay between the President of the Treasury Board and the PBO. The government had laid out the idea that it was going to find 70% of the savings it had booked by finding efficiencies in government. That was fine. The only problem was it did not provide the evidence, and we all know what happened after that: the Parliamentary Budget Officer had to take the government to court.

I have started my comments by providing this background because if the government is going to put assumptions into the budget that have to do with savings and it is going to show Canadians that they can trust it, then it should be able to show parliamentarians, and indeed the Parliamentary Budget Officer, where it is going to find those savings. It should not make general sweeping comments.

This is not new, though. I remember having the same problem three budgets ago. Three budgets ago, the government was talking about selling off capital assets and finding savings to meet its budgetary requirements. In fact, it was not able to do that.

The problem was that the government had not identified where it was going to sell off those assets. It just had some general ideas.

This is a continuing problem with the Conservatives. Over time, when they make assumptions that they are going to find savings but do not identify where the savings are, it catches up to them. We saw that with the government's forecasts for deficits and growth, but most importantly in the budgetary numbers, which is what we are discussing.

When the budget came forward—or the economic action plan, as Conservatives call it—we did not get details. In fact, some commented that the only important parts of the economic action plan were the first four pages and the final pages, and everything in between was fluff and propaganda.

Those are not my words, but I agree with them. The government is trying to fool people by putting out announcements and pronouncements, to the point where we do not even call it a budget any more.

I suppose there is some truth in advertising, because it is not a budget as we normally understand a budget to be. Normally a budget will lay out financial aspirations and give some evidence of where the savings are going to be found and what programs are going to be invested in.

One example that has really irritated a lot of people in my riding and across the country, particularly young people, is the Canada job grant. If we were to watch our televisions tonight and see the government's ad, we would think that right now there is a program for young people called the Canada jobs grant. In fact, we would be very disappointed if we picked up the phone the next day and tried to contact someone to avail ourselves of this program, because it turns out that this program that the government has made a lot of fanfare announcing does not exist. It is predicated on agreements that have not happened yet. We have a government now that has to get agreement from the provinces, which is no small task, and then the rollout may happen.

With regard to youth unemployment, right now the government is telling young people to just trust it because it has a program for them. If they pick up the phone to try to get help, there is no one on the other end. That is indicative of this budget. What we get is a lot of hack.

The government's credibility is suffering not just because of what we have seen in the last couple of weeks with the scandals in the other place but also in its actual currency in being able to tell Canadians exactly where it is going to find savings and exactly what programs will exist for young people.

On top of that, as if advertising programs with great fanfare and making people believe they actually exist was not bad enough, there are other pieces of legislation—because that is what the government does—that should not be in the budget at all, in particular the amalgamation of CIDA into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Bringing CIDA under the umbrella of foreign affairs is a very important exercise. At committee we asked officials when they found about this merger. They were told basically the day of the budget. We asked who was consulted on this merger. It turns out it was not really anyone. It looks like the Conservatives had a conversation among themselves.

I say that because when other jurisdictions have done this—the U.K., the U.S.—they took the time to consult within government to start with. It turns out that if public servants have been working on international development and foreign affairs for most of their careers, one would think they would be good sources for consulting on the changes we are about to see with CIDA. One would think we would consult Canadians on this issue, even those who work in international development and diplomacy.

However, that is not the case with the current government, because it does not consult. What is really offensive and undermines the opportunity to see this done well is that it was put into a budget bill. A budget bill is the forecast of what we should be looking at in terms of economic activity and investment, but Conservatives put the merger of departments into a budget bill. Why? It is because they have done it before and they think that is the way to do business.

If this were even contemplated in the U.K. or the U.S., it would be laughed at. Officials had better go to either the White House, the Pentagon, et cetera, or in the case of the U.K. to cabinet, with a plan. In the case of the U.K., when the merger occurred, there was actually a white paper on it. People were consulted. It was in the platform of the government of the day.

In the case of the United States, people consulted widely. Ms. Clinton, as Secretary of State, went out and put together different groups that did the work speedily until the job was done. However, with the Conservative government, people find out the day of the budget, with no consultations.

Now we are hearing that a transition team is in place, but officials on the transition team have to wait for a budget to be passed. They then have to scratch their heads and wait for the minister to give direction. By the way, the people they work with are wondering how this is going work, but the officials cannot tell them. Why? It is because Conservatives did not bother to even consult.

With regard to CIDA, people are concerned about the money that CIDA will bring to the table and where it is going to go. They are worried about the mandate, because in this legislation they do not have the language that most people would like to see, the language in the official development assistance legislation that focuses on the reduction of poverty or poverty eradication. Instead the mandate is to follow Canadian values.

I am not sure Canadians feel a lot of comfort when they see the way the government interprets Canadian values. According to the Minister of Foreign Affairs today, our Canadian values mean not signing on to the arms trade treaty because somehow there is a conspiracy that the whole world is involved in to bring in gun control that the Conservatives do not like.

Canadian values are in the eye of the beholder. What we need is legislation that will guide international development assistance, but what we see with this economic propaganda plan of the government is that it does not meet the test on numbers. We are still waiting for the government to tell us how it is going to make its savings from the previous budget, which we do not have, and I am sure every Conservative knows that. We are now waiting for the government to tell us how we go forward with that problem. We do not have numbers from the previous budget in going forward to 2013. As well, we have pieces of legislation such as the merger of CIDA into foreign affairs as an add-on, without contemplation, without consultation, without a plan.

I have just started. I started with the fact that it seems to be a shell game, a Fantasia for young people. At the end of the day, what we have is not a budget. It is not credible, and that is why we will not be supporting it.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his overview. He had some good points underlining where we stand on the balance sheet, but I have some problems with some of the assumptions he made in his comments. He made it sound as if we are doing well and have done well through the 2008 period because of the government's policies.

In fact, it was in spite of many of the people who sit on the front bench, not because of them, that we are doing well. He should remember well when there was a push to merge banks, to deregulate. We would have seen the disaster we have seen south of the border to some extent if that had happened, and we withstood the 2008 storm primarily because our banks were capitalized and we did not deregulate and allow these kinds of financial products to come about. I think he should acknowledge that.

He should also acknowledge that there is almost half a trillion dollars not being invested, which was Mr. Carney's point, of course. Where is the plan to get money moving and invest to create jobs, and would he not acknowledge the point I made about the push to merge and deregulate?

[Foreign Affairs, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is about the regulation of global trade in weapons. It is not about domestic use. The minister has had two months to figure this out. Why does he not just sign? It is time to sign this accord.

Every year, half a million people die because of the illegal trade in arms. Why is the government failing to join the rest of the world in limiting the arms that go to some of the hottest conflicts in the world? In fact, right now, when we are talking about Syria, we are talking about arms going to Syria. It is time to stop that. Sign the deal now.

[International Co-operation, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced a $4-billion plan to invest in the Palestinian private sector to help restart the peace process. In contrast, Canada's aid commitment to the Palestinian authority expired in March, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken a “wait and see” approach in terms of renewal.

This aid that was very successful in helping the Palestinian people and that contributed to stabilization there is something we think will help advance peace in the Middle East, particularly in helping the Palestinian people.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs actually confirm that he will advance the cause of the Palestinian people and renew the funds?

[Government Appointments, May 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Arthur Porter is in jail under charges of fraud and money laundering. Just two years ago the Conservatives had full confidence in Mr. Porter. They made him the chair of the CSIS watchdog and appointed him to the Privy Council. Despite charges connecting Mr. Porter to one of the largest fraud cases in Canada's history, he remains a member of the Privy Council.

Will the government remove him from the Privy Council?

[Government Appointments, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is about the Prime Minister's judgment and lack thereof. We have Jeffrey Delisle selling off Canada's secrets. At the same time, the Conservative appointee, Arthur Porter, was chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Can members believe it? Now both are behind bars, yet Conservatives are refusing to take accountability and tell Canadians what really went on here.

Will the Conservatives finally take responsibility for Arthur Porter?

[Transparency of Payments Made by Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations to Foreign Governments Act, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to what I think is a valid initiative and something we should get behind. We have talked a bit about this already earlier today, when we were talking about the bill from the Senate on corruption.

What is astounding about the current government is that even when there is a good idea, the Conservatives have to put a partisan political veil on it. I am going to diverge from my notes for a second here and respond a bit to the parliamentary secretary's comments.

He said that the government cannot support this bill. Let us remember that this is a private member's bill, so I encourage every member of the Conservative Party to look at this with an independent lens, to look at what the rest of the world is doing and saying, and to remember that it is a private member's bill and that they can vote, hopefully with their conscience, and represent their constituents on this issue. I know many of their constituents would be in favour of this bill.

In fact, when they look at who is supporting this bill and this initiative, they would be hard pressed to find constituents in any of their ridings who would be against it. What are they against? They would be against transparency, which our friends south of the border would be in favour of, and against the whole focus of the upcoming G8 conference.

If the Conservatives have problems with the bill, they should at least bring forward amendments. However, what the Conservatives are saying is that because it does not come from them but from someone else, they will kill it immediately. That is the philosophy of the current government.

To address the parliamentary secretary's comments, he should discern, and we sure do, the difference between the reputation of Canada as a country versus what is happening to our reputation because of the government. It is what happens when we do things as inane as what we did at the United Nations this past fall, where we hectored and lectored. Even though our Prime Minister was in the very city where people were addressing the General Assembly, we instead sent our Minister of Foreign Affairs, who got to speak to a nearly empty hall and hectored and lectored everyone in the hall. Then the Conservatives wonder why we are not getting along with our allies and others and are not on the Security Council.

However, on the bill, it looks to the future and says that when Canadian companies are doing their affairs abroad, they should be entirely transparent in their transactions. That is exactly what we need to see from Canadian companies, and interestingly, Canadian companies want to do it. My colleague and I, as he mentioned, had a meeting with the representative from the U.K. who is looking at organizing the meeting for the G8, and there were also representatives from the mining industry. They were saying they want to get on board with this approach. The government does not. Why? It is because it did not come from the government.

I am going to bring forward to second reading, hopefully in this next year, a bill on conflict minerals. My bill, like the one from my colleague from the Liberal Party, is based on the Dodd–Frank initiative from south of the border. We think it is smart to get in line with some of these initiatives that our allies are getting in line with because it is good for business and good for our reputation abroad to say that as a country we are going to be responsible actors abroad, nothing more and nothing less.

The Conservatives are so stuck in the past that they cannot even look at a good idea and say, “If we have problems with it, let's work it out.” That attitude is astonishing to constituents when they hear that there is a good idea being put in front of Parliament and that in fact it is a private member's initiative. I had thought that certainly members of the Reform Party thought that it was a really good idea to empower private members' initiatives, that they would actually be able to look at it on the basis of the merit of the idea and have a debate, have a vote and get behind it if they thought it was good for the country and for their constituents. However, what we see here and what was demonstrated by the parliamentary secretary is what we see time and time again. Why could there not be amendments? They could go to committee and do it, but no, we do not even get to go past the first reading point.

I hope the Conservatives remember this, because they will know that someday they will not be in government. One day they will have to take a look at how Parliament is functioning, and people will remind them of how they behaved. I hope they remember that, because right now we are seeing good ideas getting shut down. This is a good idea, and it seems that the government will kill it.

I hope those who are on the backbench actually look at the bill, listen to their constituents and say "based on the merits of the idea, I am going to support it" or "I do not agree with it and here is why" and have a debate about it. Just to get in line and do what they are told is fundamentally undermining their role in Parliament.

That is unfortunate, because most constituents within their ridings want to see transparency. They want to see good ideas put forward. In the case the sunshine bill, it is about Canada's reputation. It is about moving forward, not going backward. We see the government avoiding these ideas.

Do we really want to be seen overseas as laggards on transparency? I think not. Do we want to be seen as fighting even the motivation initiatives of industry? I hope not. That is what people will be doing, in essence, when they say no to this bill.

Finally, I will identify and go through some of the people who are behind this: Transparency International Canada; Probe International; Partnership Africa, which is doing good work on the ground in Africa; Africa Files; and the Corporate Knights. As I said, mining umbrella groups are behind the idea of this as is Publish What You Pay.

Why would anyone be against it? What the parliamentary secretary has pointed out is that somehow we are unable to apply this legislation, which has been adopted in other legislatures and jurisdictions in Canada, because of our Constitution.

We know how legislation is drafted. We know how it has to be in accordance with Canadian law. That is why we have amendments. As they say, that dog will not hunt. If they really do not believe that something can be done, amendments can be made. They cannot reject an idea just based on that.

In summation of why I think this bill is important to adopt, we have to take a look at what is happening in the global economy right now. We have a multi-polar world. We have the BRIC countries, which are major actors in the extractives. We have to get the social license to do business in countries abroad.

If we are not going to get in line with these norms that everyone else is adopting, what does that do to Canada's strategic advantage? If we reject transparency and if we reject the norms that we see others adopting, what does that do?

What it does, interestingly enough, is undermines the very goals that the government claims to be in favour of, which are to expand our investment and trade abroad. If we are seen as laggards on basic transparency, on governance and on the norms that others are following, it is clear what that will do to our reputation, not just as a country, but in terms of investment and how Canadian companies are seen abroad. This is not because of their behaviour, per se, but because of the lack of leadership from the government.

I would encourage all hon. members to take an independent look at this bill, listen to their constituents and ask them what they think of it. What are they here for if not to listen to their constituents, the primary mandate of any member of Parliament? If they hear from the constituents that it is a good idea that should be adopted, then they should break loose, do their jobs, vote independently, seize the day and free themselves from the tyranny of the whip and say "please support transparency".